Anonymous wrote:
No one said it was. But it had reasonably thick skin on the side and the back. For my purposes what is reasonably thick skin on the back and side is already thicker than what is found on the back of Leopard II, M-1 and LeClerk, and that was enough to demonstrate the point.
Ehm, 80mm cold WW2 steel? Leopard II has 60mm composite, LeClerc similar, Challenger II is generally assumed to have considerably more.
Let's stay with the facts - the Tiger II is markedly inferior when it comes to protection. Anything else is nonsense.
Jorit
Leopard II is not known to have composite armor. It has spaced armor over the frontal arc, and cold rolled, single vertical steel plate in the back. I grant you 60mm because I don't know how thick it is. Ammunition bustle at the back of the turret does not count as spaced protection for the back. Given that Challenger, LeClerc, Leopard II, M-1 and Japanese Type 90 are all very similar in weight and size, I would not credit report which argues that one of them is overwhelmingly better protected than another.
JWintjes wrote:
Ehm, Chuck, but you do know that the engine that powered the Tiger II was the same as that one powering the Panther, don't you?
Jorit
Yes. I do.
But do you see Tiger II backing out of there at 25 miles per hour? In urban combat what is needed is low gear ratio, the ability to either ram through or climb over normal urban debris, and the ability to pivot on its own axis. For this you would not find Tiger II to be seriously inadequate.
This is even more so because if you compare the foot print of Tiger II, or any WWII tank, to the foot print of a modern MBT, you would find WWII tanks were taller but have a significantly shorter and usually narrower foot print. It is good to be low and squat and be able to hide behind obstacles in a open field tank battle. But in urbane combat the ability to squeeze into narrow alleys and pivot around in small square counts for more.
Anonymous wrote:
Leopard II is not known to have composite armor. It has spaced armor over the frontal arc, and cold rolled, single vertical steel plate in the back. I grant you 60mm because I don't know how thick it is. Ammunition bustle at the back of the turret does not count as spaced protection for the back. Given that Challenger, LeClerc, Leopard II, M-1 and Japanese Type 90 are all very similar in weight and size, I would not credit report which argues that one of them is overwhelmingly better protected than another.
Leopard II is generally thought to have Chobham armour. The exact composition of its armour is classified, which hints at it not having RHA.
It is definitely better than 80mm RHA.
Challenger II is generally considered to be the best protected of the bunch, at the prize of below average mobility.
But do you see Tiger II backing out of there at 25 miles per hour? In urban combat what is needed is low gear ratio, the ability to either ram through or climb over normal urban debris, and the ability to pivot on its own axis. For this you would not find Tiger II to be seriously inadequate.
One thing is for certain - the Germans, who arguably had more experience with Tigers than either you or me, preferred the Panther particularly in urban settings.
You know, it helps to get quickly out of dodge when you're sitting on a main driveway crossing...
This is even more so because if you compare the foot print of Tiger II, or any WWII tank, to the foot print of a modern MBT, you would find WWII tanks were taller but have a significantly shorter and usually narrower foot print. It is good to be low and squat and be able to hide behind obstacles in a open field tank battle. But in urbane combat the ability to squeeze into narrow alleys and pivot around in small square counts for more.
"Narrow alleys"? "Pivot around in small square"? With a King Tiger???
JWintjes wrote:
Leopard II is generally thought to have Chobham armour. The exact composition of its armour is classified, which hints at it not having RHA.
It is definitely better than 80mm RHA.
That Leopard II does not have Chobham has been more or less openly acknowledged. But be it as it may, any modern improved armor block capable of resisting heat and sabot rounds are prodigiously thick (didn't say they were solid). You can determine how thick the whole armor block is by looking at the weld lines on the top of the turret where the inside of the armor block meets the roof plate of the turret. With both Leopard II and M-1 (haven't looked at Challenger or Leclerk) the weld lines on turret top distinctly show very thick cheek pieces in the front of the turret on either side of the gun and moderately thick side pieces protecting the sides of the turret (Just notice how far inboard, and how far behind the front of the turret the commander's and loader;s stations are). But no room whatsoever is there in the very back of the turret for anything more than a single steel plate. I will bet 10 to 1 that back of the turret is only machine gun proof, or at the most, very light AT weapon proof.
But do you see Tiger II backing out of there at 25 miles per hour? In urban combat what is needed is low gear ratio, the ability to either ram through or climb over normal urban debris, and the ability to pivot on its own axis. For this you would not find Tiger II to be seriously inadequate.
One thing is for certain - the Germans, who arguably had more experience with Tigers than either you or me, preferred the Panther particularly in urban settings.
Jorit
JWintjes wrote:
"Narrow alleys"? "Pivot around in small square"? With a King Tiger???
Chuck, stop inhaling.
Jorit
King Tiger might not move much on an open battlefield, but no one with direct experience seems to have said that King Tiger's close quarter low speed maneuverability was poor. The German army credits King Tiger with better close quarter maneuverability than PzKfW IV.
I found the reference to 1,000 calibers on explosively formed penetrators. It is in the USNI Proceedings. I will transcribe the article when I have time (and I'm sober).
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
JWintjes wrote:
"Narrow alleys"? "Pivot around in small square"? With a King Tiger???
Chuck, stop inhaling.
Jorit
King Tiger might not move much on an open battlefield, but no one with direct experience seems to have said that King Tiger's close quarter low speed maneuverability was poor. The German army credits King Tiger with better close quarter maneuverability than PzKfW IV.
Chuck,
on a post-1943 battlefield anything is better than a Pz IV. I don't say its low speed characteristics were poor. I just say that they were inferior to say the Panther. And that was recognized by the Germans.
Do a google search of "explosively formed penetrator patent"
This is obviously a developing field, because there are way more that 12 pages of patents, most of which point to classified materiels for backup.
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
RPG-7 penetrates anything from 300mm RHA onwards. Which means it will kill a Tiger fair and square from the front.
It even has tandem warhead capability.
Jorit
I said light, not weak.
And what does tandem warhead do for you against solid steel armor?
Besides, I was thinking of 1st generation 1950 RPG-7 warheads, whose performance probably deteriorate somewhat over the years.
But, stop nitpicking. The defense of most modern tanks are weak in the rear quarter, and much weaker than is necessary to counter scores of easily available weapons.
40mm of vertical homogeneous armor is still in all likelihood weaker than Tiger II 80mm inclined face hardened armor against kenetic projectiles. Certainly rear quarter protection of modern tanks have not seen daramtic improvement since WWII comparable to the level of improvements seen over the frontal arc.
