S76 Frontal Hull vs Tiger

[dm79]

So next post, inconsistent penetrations if pen at all and no post pen effect on target if pen.

Frontal shots from Tiger onto M4A3 (76) at an estimated ranges of 100 to 300 meters upper hull 63mm at 47 degrees, effective thickness 93.11mm, Tiger round Pgzgr 39 rated at  120mm @ 100m. 110mm @ 500m, 100mm @ 1000m 91mm @ 1500m.

• First point of contention - first engagement in video was not square on and slightly off angle but i would question not enough to have a dramatic change in penetration also of note shell from Sherman seemed to have no difficulty with angle.

These shots should be going though the front of the 76 and if a 50cal round bouncing around in a Tiger can cause a catastrophic explosion coming in though the turret and making several bounces (see my P38 video) then an 88 round going though the front of a Sherman should make a bit of a mess of everything!

You will note in video 3 that a round does seem to pen and have an effect but as pointed it seems marginal at best.

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by dm79

[jester]

This, particularly the third video, is a mixture of sloped armor overperforming as you are well aware, and the "critcs not registering" issue which has been reported in here several times from many different players, affecting all units.

 

Edit: At least all vehicles

Edited January 18, 2022 by jester

[vongters1]

it is very difficult to kill an s76 in the front even at short range, although we use an 88 .. without considering the absurd ineffectiveness of the pak40. Today a S76 survived and fired again after 15 shots suffered by 2 tigers always at short range, about 500m. This is ridiculous. I have a good k / d with the tiger, about 12, but nevertheless I think this thing is absurd.

[Dre21]

The 1st video biggest joke ever for any Tiger operator , reason why I don't use it much , that 88 round should have punched through that frontal armor with ease , if not that then alone the spalling would have turned the crew in that Sherman to hamburger.

No one can tell me that in real life a Tiger commander had his Tiger always perfectly squared up vs Allied Sherman's,  NEVER ever will you sell it to me.

But yet a P38 bounces 50cal around a Tiger and blows it up. 

I'm sorry a blind person can see something is off , WAY OFF.

[goreblimey]

Firstly. I am not having a go at you.

The ping again in all the videos is crazy, how can you not allow for web issues as part of the problem. 

If I/others recorded and posted all the wtf moments where close range kills are expected this list would be massive. Sometimes you seem to win that lottery others not so much.

And yes I agree all things being equal those shermans should be dead. 

[jayhawk]

nothing news guy , it been told many moon ago , it will never be fix

[dm79]

49 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

Firstly. I am not having a go at you.

The ping again in all the videos is crazy, how can you not allow for web issues as part of the problem. 

If I/others recorded and posted all the wtf moments where close range kills are expected this list would be massive. Sometimes you seem to win that lottery others not so much.

And yes I agree all things being equal those shermans should be dead. 

The ping is just a incorrect display if you watch my packets under it no losses its stable, i think my firewall does something strange, i can also show you video of me driving around with it showing 160ms,  I'm going to look into it but its not effecting my game you see what i mean in this video no audio just uploaded it quickly.

 

[undercova]

shoot at this spot

 

found this spot many months ago ... and you can also see it in your 3rd video  insta blows it up

[dm79]

4 hours ago, undercova said:

shoot at this spot

 

found this spot many months ago ... and you can also see it in your 3rd video  insta blows it up

It should and should not be the case the whole front is the same thickness so why would one area be weaker. That would imply that the area you are showing is either the correct thickness or different to the rest of the front one or the other being incorrect in that case. Interesting.

[Dre21]

12 hours ago, goreblimey said:

The ping again in all the videos is crazy

Yet , he is not disconnected from the game server, I can tell you this much  , if mine goes into the red longer then 10 seconds it's auto despawn for me. 

[Kidd27]

2 hours ago, dm79 said:

It should and should not be the case the whole front is the same thickness so why would one area be weaker. That would imply that the area you are showing is either the correct thickness or different to the rest of the front one or the other being incorrect in that case. Interesting.

it would have nothing to do with thickness or weakness, it would be what is behind the plate after penetration. Fuel?

[dm79]

1 hour ago, Kidd27 said:

it would have nothing to do with thickness or weakness, it would be what is behind the plate after penetration. Fuel?

I know what you are saying and it would be ammo to explode. What I am saying is why are you able to pen that area when the rest of the front does not allow pen when that plate is the same thickness over the front.

[Kidd27]

11 minutes ago, dm79 said:

I know what you are saying and it would be ammo to explode. What I am saying is why are you able to pen that area when the rest of the front does not allow pen when that plate is the same thickness over the front.

Yeah guy, ive watched the videos, i have plenty of similar experiences. I get it.

Although unlikely to survive in RL, maybe the game recognized the pen, without hitting a critical.

We dont have the Sherman perspective of damage or crew hits.

the sherm in the last video is ded before the last shot pops his top.

Its not ideal...

 

you got a bridge fetish?

Edited January 19, 2022 by Kidd27

[dm79]

1 hour ago, Kidd27 said:

Yeah guy, ive watched the videos, i have plenty of similar experiences. I get it.

Although unlikely to survive in RL, maybe the game recognized the pen, without hitting a critical.

We dont have the Sherman perspective of damage or crew hits.

the sherm in the last video is ded before the last shot pops his top.

Its not ideal...

 

you got a bridge fetish?

See that's where we diverge on view, if the amour value is 93mm and the Tiger gun will do 110mm that's what it should do every time, you could argue for a few percentile either side, but not enough to make it not work at the ranges involved here.

It's quite telling or maybe a coincidence, there seems to be a real lack of Rat volume in this thread compared to others within this section of the forum.

Maybe what I am seeing is by design to make it more competitive than it should be or the Tiger less effective, although this is just my view based on what i am seeing.  What I do know is one of both don't match historical figures that's clearly evidenced in the videos.

 

One last thing, it is dead at the point you say, my problem with that is the Gunner was clearly not dead before that after what should have been 2 penetration shots. Also another point if a 50 cal  round bouncing around inside a tank  though a commnders hatch, can do so much damage, which seems to be the conclusion from most of the Rats. Why does a 88mm ap shell coming though the drivers/co drivers face, into the loader, Gunner and commanders torso or legs seem to have so little effect! 

I remain open minded to other views, I am just not seeing any.

Edited January 19, 2022 by dm79

[fidd]

I think there's a very small pool of Rats, and an even smaller pool of them who are technically competent to address the problem, and that has more to do with why Rats are not commenting, rather than any partisan consideration? The inability of the 88 to kill the gunner suggests that there's a relative lack of spalling, but as there's no overmatch, that's possibly unsurprising at even fairly short ranges. Do I think the L/56 is underperforming in penetration? - probably slightly, but the lack of spalling does make more sense at medium ranges, because of the lack of overmatch, so in terms of lethality for a shot which penetrates, but does not pass through a crew-member, that's a different matter.

This is slightly outside of my comfort-zone in terms of opining on, but from what I understand, the gap between how the L/56 should operate and how it does, are pretty close to correct. I suspect this is why on some occasions the s76 is killed, and on others, it is not, whilst at very similar ranges, as the placement of the hit by the L/56 is absolutely critical in determining whether a kill occurs, rather than the range per se.. YMMV, and I'm not suggesting my interpretation is correct here, merely that it does explain more of the observed behaviour?

I would draw your attention to close-range hits by 2pdrs on the 232, as for decades now, very similar "weirdness" occurs in regard to this match-up, despite overmatch. I am in no way suggesting, so we're clear, that simply because this has been the case, that the Tiger/Sherman 76 ought not be looked at again, but I do raise it as there are other examples in game where there's a gap between expected outcome and observed hits/ranges. It's an imperfect system, which nevertheless generally works pretty well and in accordance with most book-figures.

Edited January 19, 2022 by fidd

[dm79]

6 minutes ago, fidd said:

I think there's a very small pool of Rats, and an even smaller pool of them who are technically competent to address the problem, and that has more to do with why Rats are not commenting, rather than any partisan consideration? The inability of the 88 to kill the gunner suggests that there's a relative lack of spalling, but as there's no overmatch, that's possibly unsurprising at even fairly short ranges. Do I think the L/56 is underperforming in penetration? - probably slightly, but the lack of spalling does make more sense at medium ranbecause of the lack of overmatch, so in terms of lethality for a shot which penetrates, but does not pass through a crew-member, that's a different matter.

This is slightly outside of my comfort-zone in terms of opining on, but from what I understand, the gap between how the L/56 should operate and how it does, are pretty close to correct. I suspect this is why on some occasions the s76 is killed, and on others, it is not, whilst at very similar ranges, as the placement of the hit by the L/56 is absolutely critical in determining whether a kill occurs, rather than the range per se.. YMMV, and I'm not suggesting my interpretation is correct here, merely that it does explain more of the observed behaviour?

Hi Fidd, the size of the Rat pool is a fair consideration agreed. 

Thank you for your opinion, I don't think that is the case as we are looking at pure values here and dismissing overmatch entirely as it is not even required.

That 88 round is punching a 88cm ish size hole in the front of that hull or should be, once it's inside the hull it's going bang, likely around the point it gets near the back of the drivers head or even just before it hits the gunner or loader. What's left of that shell is carrying on towards the rear of the tank likely stopping in the engine, the other parts that went bang are the flying around that tiny turret ripping stuff to bits, and likely hitting the ammo, but I will dismiss it setting that off as its In wet storage, but that gunner driver loader commander should be toast,  dead no question about it!

If a 50 cal round from a p38  bouncing around a turret is widely accepted from allied and rat views as setting off a Tigers ammo at a stupid angle, then all things considered and equal an 88mm round with far more mass, velocity  if not enough and with a post pen explosive charge, including   more flying shrapnel is going to shred the inside of that tank.

[fidd]

1 hour ago, dm79 said:

Hi Fidd, the size of the Rat pool is a fair consideration agreed. 

Thank you for your opinion, I don't think that is the case as we are looking at pure values here and dismissing overmatch entirely as it is not even required.

That 88 round is punching a 88cm ish size hole in the front of that hull or should be, once it's inside the hull it's going bang, likely around the point it gets near the back of the drivers head or even just before it hits the gunner or loader. What's left of that shell is carrying on towards the rear of the tank likely stopping in the engine, the other parts that went bang are the flying around that tiny turret ripping stuff to bits, and likely hitting the ammo, but I will dismiss it setting that off as its In wet storage, but that gunner driver loader commander should be toast,  dead no question about it!

If a 50 cal round from a p38  bouncing around a turret is widely accepted from allied and rat views as setting off a Tigers ammo at a stupid angle, then all things considered and equal an 88mm round with far more mass, velocity  if not enough and with a post pen explosive charge, including   more flying shrapnel is going to shred the inside of that tank.

My point was that round path is a very different proposition to the attendant spall, and that the two are treated differently, again as I understand it, by the fundamental core of the software. You're quite right that in a modern simulation, the "secondary shrapnel" from bits of the internal tank structure being accelerated to lethal speeds ought to be modelled, but my understanding is that they arn't, and never have been. Hence my raising of the 232/2pdr effects. To offset this, it's my estimate that the Rats did model spalling, and did so the best of their ability at the time, given the hardware we all had to compute such things. In most cases, this spalling effect does kill crewmen, but it is to some degree dependant on overmatch, as this has a big effect, we're told, on the amount of spalling generated. In the absence of overmatch, the spalling is little - if any - and one is limited to the undermodelled effect of a penetrating round. 

This applies to exchanges of fire with every vehicle in game. I don't think one can make a special case here for one vehicle.

As far as the P38 goes for killing tigers, as you may know, I'm not in favour, generally speaking, with air being generally able to damage or destroy tanks with non-AT weapons, especially if it requires non-standard flight manoeuvres to attain the result. So I have previously argued forcefully against looping P38's firing directly downwards onto PzIV's to attain kills, and against axis 20mm's killing the engines of Matildas. It unbalances the game too badly. So my start position is to have considerable sympathy for your point about Tiger's being killed by 0.50cal fire from aircraft if closed down. I confess I am very surprised that the Tiger's cupola, if indeed this is where the rounds penetrate, is weak enough to permit it. As I understand that the strafing manoeuvre does not exploit ahistoric manoeuvres to attain the kill, then If I were you, I'd be looking at the thickness of the armour on the cupola and hatches, and checking the performance of  0.50 cal against those. 

One of the difficulties here, is that the performance of 0.50 cals has to be of a sensible effect, relative to 20mm cannon, and the damage-models of aircraft. In the past, when the armour piecing quality of 0.50 cal was reduced to help solve a ground related problem it had a deleterious effect on allied air combat. And vice versa. This may be an occasion where a small increase in armour of the cupola is required over and above historic values, if we're to retain tank v tank action, or ATG v tank action, as the predominant means of killing tanks, rather than non AT aircraft being able to do the job. I'd support such a change, PROVIDED that it had little or no effect on the ground game, and that the effective armour of the cupola was first verified as correct.

One issue here may be in the manner in which some German cupolas were modelled. Most had "falling-block" arrangements in front of the apertures for periscopes or direct-vision blocks, meaning that vision out of the cupola was not possible unless such falling blocks were raised, which implies, as Tigers in game retain such external vision, that said falling-blocks were not implemented as closable. If they were properly modelled, and fully protected from fire, then of course a number of axis - and possibly allied tanks as well - would need to lose their ability to view out of the cupolas when fully closed down, unless the falling blocks are raised. What is actually needed, is the same implementation as say the Char, where there are similar blocks that can be lowered across vision slits, rendering the cupola immune to non-penetrating fire?

So perhaps some cupolas need a redesign?

Edited January 19, 2022 by fidd

[Dre21]

This is 88 pnzgr39 vs T34 unfortunately they don't have a Tigers 88 vs a Sherman frontal Armor yet but one can hope they will .

 

[jester]

24 minutes ago, Dre21 said:

This is 88 pnzgr39 vs T34 unfortunately they don't have a Tigers 88 vs a Sherman frontal Armor yet but one can hope they will .

Just go onto War Thunder and run a ballistics test. The game gets a lot of hate due to the majority of its players opting for the Arcade routes, but their damage simulation and modeling is incredible, even surpassing this game

[dm79]

36 minutes ago, jester said:

Just go onto War Thunder and run a ballistics test. The game gets a lot of hate due to the majority of its players opting for the Arcade routes, but their damage simulation and modeling is incredible, even surpassing this game

Said that before as well. Although beyond building more of a case the pure data numbers should be enough imo.

Edited January 19, 2022 by dm79

[fidd]

2 hours ago, jester said:

Just go onto War Thunder and run a ballistics test. The game gets a lot of hate due to the majority of its players opting for the Arcade routes, but their damage simulation and modeling is incredible, even surpassing this game

In fairness, that's software a good 20 years younger than ww2ol, and optimised for far more capable PC's than wwol2ol ever was. I've not played WT, however, from what I've heard whilst the damage model maybe more complex, that doesn't always result in a more accurate sim/game. It's my belief that with an updated terrain, with the removal of hedge-tunnels and colliderless road-side linear features, so that there are many more "choke-points" in the terrain, both for infantry and armour, and less visual (only) clutter, that this game would be right up there with other more modern tank sims, and exceeding some. There's plenty of newer sim/games that attempted to model many more aspects of using weapons and equipment which made the simple, needlessly complex - Aces High fell firmly into this category.

Presumably there will be scope in ww2ol 2.0 for damage-models to be further improved, but I don't think we'll be seeing much more improvements to 1.36 in the interim, except on an experimental basis.

[dm79]

7 minutes ago, fidd said:

In fairness, that's software a good 20 years younger than ww2ol, and optimised for far more capable PC's than wwol2ol ever was. I've not played WT, however, from what I've heard whilst the damage model maybe more complex, that doesn't always result in a more accurate sim/game. It's my belief that with an updated terrain, with the removal of hedge-tunnels and colliderless road-side linear features, so that there are many more "choke-points" in the terrain, both for infantry and armour, and less visual (only) clutter, that this game would be right up there with other more modern tank sims, and exceeding some. There's plenty of newer sim/games that attempted to model many more aspects of using weapons and equipment which made the simple, needlessly complex - Aces High fell firmly into this category.

Presumably there will be scope in ww2ol 2.0 for damage-models to be further improved, but I don't think we'll be seeing much more improvements to 1.36 in the interim, except on an experimental basis.

Not to derail this thread too much but I agree it would be, one of the main things holding this game back is a lack of transparency with data along with a lot of the items you said as well, look at the other competitors in this field and the data is freely out there, they have their own problems and no game is perfect, some changes in this game could quite easily make it the go to. 

[fidd]

2 hours ago, dm79 said:

Not to derail this thread too much but I agree it would be, one of the main things holding this game back is a lack of transparency with data along with a lot of the items you said as well, look at the other competitors in this field and the data is freely out there, they have their own problems and no game is perfect, some changes in this game could quite easily make it the go to. 

I'd be interested to read your reaction to my thought on the axis cupolas with falling-blocks upthread btw. I'm guessing that CRS1 made a compromise - with sappers/zooks etc - in mind, between retaining the closed down Tiger's ability to see around it from the closed down commander's view, and that of the protection afforded to the commander when the cupola is struck, with the falling-blocks effectively being effectively locked open. (a guess on my part) This would have been simpler to create, and really wasn't a problem with cupolas on tanks prior to the Tiger, as the odds were that the armour of the tank wasn't much thicker than that of the cupola. In other words, the omission of falling blocks only became a problem for the Tiger, as until then, the odds were that other hits on the tank would kill it. So it only comes to light as a weak-spot on the Tiger. IYSWIM?

The more I look at this, the more I think that cupolas which permit outside view from being closed down, need to have falling blocks modelled, so that the commander can secure maximum protection from strafing at the cost of losing the view outside, as occurs, for example, with the Char; provided that the cupola concerned has some form of falling blocks, and that the hatch above is not liable to penetration from the firing weapon. I'm not an expert on axis cupolas, but if memory serves, there were later war ones which were made common to more vehicles, and which were made simpler. What effect - if any - that has on what's modelled I leave to others.

Certainly this notion of the falling blocks being a weakspot in the cupola - as I suspect it was modelled - accords with my own experience with Tigers when even an unlucky hit in that area from an S75 or similar weapon seemed to be able to kill the commander.

I think some comment from the rats about the armour values used in cupolas and the situation re falling blocks would add some much needed data to the questions arising here.

Edited January 20, 2022 by fidd

[dm79]

20 hours ago, fidd said:

I'd be interested to read your reaction to my thought on the axis cupolas with falling-blocks upthread btw. I'm guessing that CRS1 made a compromise - with sappers/zooks etc - in mind, between retaining the closed down Tiger's ability to see around it from the closed down commander's view, and that of the protection afforded to the commander when the cupola is struck, with the falling-blocks effectively being effectively locked open. (a guess on my part) This would have been simpler to create, and really wasn't a problem with cupolas on tanks prior to the Tiger, as the odds were that the armour of the tank wasn't much thicker than that of the cupola. In other words, the omission of falling blocks only became a problem for the Tiger, as until then, the odds were that other hits on the tank would kill it. So it only comes to light as a weak-spot on the Tiger. IYSWIM?

The more I look at this, the more I think that cupolas which permit outside view from being closed down, need to have falling blocks modelled, so that the commander can secure maximum protection from strafing at the cost of losing the view outside, as occurs, for example, with the Char; provided that the cupola concerned has some form of falling blocks, and that the hatch above is not liable to penetration from the firing weapon. I'm not an expert on axis cupolas, but if memory serves, there were later war ones which were made common to more vehicles, and which were made simpler. What effect - if any - that has on what's modelled I leave to others.

Certainly this notion of the falling blocks being a weakspot in the cupola - as I suspect it was modelled - accords with my own experience with Tigers when even an unlucky hit in that area from an S75 or similar weapon seemed to be able to kill the commander.

I think some comment from the rats about the armour values used in cupolas and the situation re falling blocks would add some much needed data to the questions arising here.

I think it sounds like a lot of work for very little gain from a team that can't even spend the time needed, on correcting incorrect values in current damage areas like highlighted in this thread, a few other issues, i don't have the ability to pop just my head out, i have to stand in the turret like i want someone to shoot me it's unrealistic. Talking of the Tiger they would also have to change the cupola late game as the inital tiger one was quite large and was later changed to a more slimlined one.

Oh and it don't need a weak point like that every late tier tank can pen it frontaly at the ranges you would need to be at to aim at such a small area, it would be like Allied players aiming at the 4g/h hull when they could  put a round though the turret front and gunners face and end it in one shot.

[fidd]

I think you misunderstand my post. I was wondering if the falling blocks of the cupola were modelled as armour, or if their being "locked open" might be the reason penetrations were occurring with 0.50 cals. (It maybe that they should be able to anyway). I think you'll find that the "simpler" late cupolas were made simpler in terms of manufacture, rather than simpler and less effective. There was also an attempt to re-use the same cupola design on as many different vehicles as possible towards the end of the war, a move towards a "standard" cupola, rather than each one being specifically designed for a given vehicle which had been the case hitherto.

Until reading this thread I'd not consciously realised that Tiger's cupola was missing it's operable falling blocks.