King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

2Fat4Airborne
Sergeant
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon 5 Mar 2012 21:16
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

Postby 2Fat4Airborne » Fri 5 May 2017 16:14

Woozle wrote:The King Tiger with porsche turret has a glaring weakspot on the front of the turret, Jumbo has no such weakspot, this is why.


Not quite right. The best way to penetrate a Jumbo was to aim above its gun mantlet, cause it was a weakspot with very low armor and angle. Same for the MG port and driversights. The only way to penetrate a TigerII back then was point blank or from the side.

Some sources claimed that there is no proof that the front armour of the King Tiger was ever been penetrated in combat. Most stuff is theory, because KT beat themselfes through technical issues.
But i understand thats nothing we want in a game. We will see if its balanced.

By the way...why not the Henschel Version....it has a reason why porsche didnt get the final contract back then. Only nice thing was the supesion. It was used for the Jagdpanther and buffed its possible performance.

User avatar
Desty
Warrant Officer
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed 23 Jul 2014 16:22
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

Postby Desty » Fri 5 May 2017 17:08

2Fat4Airborne wrote:By the way...why not the Henschel Version....it has a reason why porsche didnt get the final contract back then. Only nice thing was the supesion. It was used for the Jagdpanther and buffed its possible performance.


Other version will come too, there are pictures of it on the website.
Image

User avatar
Woozle
Captain
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat 1 Feb 2014 09:22
Location: Heierlark Base, North Osea
Contact:

Re: King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

Postby Woozle » Fri 5 May 2017 19:24

2Fat4Airborne wrote:
Woozle wrote:The King Tiger with porsche turret has a glaring weakspot on the front of the turret, Jumbo has no such weakspot, this is why.


Not quite right.


Image

Look at this giant shot trap.

User avatar
Saavedra
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2014 21:53
Contact:

Re: King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

Postby Saavedra » Fri 5 May 2017 20:06

How likely was it for tank warfare in WWII to devolve into a match of War Thunder where people would be aiming for very small weak spots somehow known to them despite their engagements against these machines probably being the first time their forces ever fought them?

User avatar
HaryPL
Lieutenant
Posts: 1373
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2012 01:41
Contact:

Re: King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

Postby HaryPL » Fri 5 May 2017 23:00

If you are going into such detail, then what about hull-machine gun port of Jumbo?
It's not only glaring weakspot (and flashy when fired), it and it's surroundings are just plan ordinary M4 Sherman armor that is rated 10-11. You can see the lack of additional armor plates even on model in-game.

Double standards much?

And AFAIK the problem of early KT turret wasn't the shot trap but the mediocre thickness that was around of 100 mm, profiled stupidly enough that for large part of it it was almost vertical.

brfelipe
Specialist
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed 23 Jul 2014 20:21
Contact:

Re: King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

Postby brfelipe » Sat 6 May 2017 03:38


User avatar
Woozle
Captain
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat 1 Feb 2014 09:22
Location: Heierlark Base, North Osea
Contact:

Re: King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

Postby Woozle » Sat 6 May 2017 05:09

Saavedra wrote:How likely was it for tank warfare in WWII to devolve into a match of War Thunder where people would be aiming for very small weak spots somehow known to them despite their engagements against these machines probably being the first time their forces ever fought them?


That is not a "very small" weakspot, nearly the entire bottom of the turret is a weakspot, you could easily hit it by accident.

The Germans considered the shot trap on the Porsche turret and the Early panthers to be enough of a problem that they gave a redesigned mantlet to the panther and totally replaced the Porsche turret, so it must have been a problem in actual combat.


HaryPL wrote: and it's surroundings are just plan ordinary M4 Sherman armor that is rated 10-11. You can see the lack of additional armor plates even on model in-game.

Double standards much?
.


Then that is a modelling error of the game, the M4 Sherman had over 1 inch thick of extra armor added onto the hull, it's not an ordinary sherman, it was very well protected.

User avatar
LTSarcasm
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu 17 Oct 2013 10:37
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

Postby LTSarcasm » Sat 6 May 2017 05:19

HaryPL wrote:If you are going into such detail, then what about hull-machine gun port of Jumbo?
It's not only glaring weakspot (and flashy when fired), it and it's surroundings are just plan ordinary M4 Sherman armor that is rated 10-11. You can see the lack of additional armor plates even on model in-game.

Double standards much?

And AFAIK the problem of early KT turret wasn't the shot trap but the mediocre thickness that was around of 100 mm, profiled stupidly enough that for large part of it it was almost vertical.


The gap in the Jumbo's glacis for the MG ball is basically just the ball itself. The glacis up-armor wraps tightly around it.

And the initial "Porsche" design of the KT Turret (as well known, actually a krupp design for both turrets) was primarily changed because of the shot trap. The secondary issue cited by the Wehrmacht was the high expense of manufacturing the curved beak. The Panther had a similar issue in the early mantlets, which is why the chin was thickened on later castings to eliminate the shot trap and reduce cost.

User avatar
HaryPL
Lieutenant
Posts: 1373
Joined: Mon 3 Dec 2012 01:41
Contact:

Re: King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

Postby HaryPL » Sat 6 May 2017 07:44

Gez, who sources them pictures and data for model references?

Weakpoint nevertheless.

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: King Tiger armor vs Jumbo armor

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Sat 6 May 2017 07:56

Saavedra wrote:How likely was it for tank warfare in WWII to devolve into a match of War Thunder where people would be aiming for very small weak spots somehow known to them despite their engagements against these machines probably being the first time their forces ever fought them?



It's not so much the gap itself, as much as the way the turret has been curved so that any shot/shrapnel would funnel into the gap between the turret and the hull.

And a no-so related note, the front drive-train of the Shermans is now my War-Thunder nightmare, so many times a should-be victim of my shots have survived because the shot has ricochets off the front drivetrain and saved the lives of the crew members.
Image

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests