JgTiger rear armor

Do you have a bug to report? Do this right here.
User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 28 Mar 2017, 15:32

Jim, Yes and thats why i told you that it could be possible that a late bazooka could take out a JT, i even cited a Panzerfaust who destroyed a JT by mistake, so yes its possible with a well placed rocket, early bazookas were crappy, they often bounced on tanks frontally and GI's hated it, iirc bazookas are efficient from the side/rear in bk, no?

Graywolf, i never said the JT can't be pentrated from Side/Rear, read me.

For the little bazooka true stories ;) WARNING very long version
Spoiler: show
Bazooka Combat Performance Data
The popular narrative of bazooka ‘effectiveness’ (and anti-tank gun ‘ineffectiveness’) is built upon anecdotes such as those above, but are they “true” or even “accurate”?

About the time Dr. Wilbur D. Jones was releasing the apparent source of Dan Ward’s observations concerning ‘Bazookas’, the first volume of a report on what has to be the most detailed study produced on documented U.S. Infantry defensive anti-armor operations was produced by SAIC for the US Army Concepts Analysis Agency. Even though the “ANTI-ARMOR DEFENSE DATA STUDY” (Final Draft Report Volumes one, two, three and four) is probably the best summary of US Infantry defensive anti-armor operations in WWII available, it is still quite limited due to the dearth of historical records and surviving participants available as sources of information. The study focuses on the best documented combat action late in the war in Europe, and it clearly identified Allied bazooka experience in North Africa as unremarkable except for 1) the troops not using them and 2) the troops lack of training.
Out of 30 ‘Actions’ clearly identifiable as anti-tank defensive operations spanning significantly fewer battles (understandable, as the Allies were on the ‘offensive’ most of the time from the Normandy landings forward) probably fewer than a third involved significant bazooka actions, and the results were mixed at best.

The following excerpts from the study are a substantial sampling of those actions. They are quite lengthy and I believe fascinating, but feel free to skip some if you prefer. I include as many as I do lest someone accuse me of ‘cherry-picking’ the data.
July 1944 (Action 8)
Fifteen German tanks and several hundred -troops overran an outpost manned by a company of the recently "arrived battalion of the 4th Division. The American company commander was killed at once and the infantrymen fell back half a mile into the-positions of the 78th Armored Field Artillery Battalion. Two artillery batteries in direct fire, a third in indirect fire, and four guns of the 702d Tank Destroyer Battalion, held off the Germans for thirty minutes until nearby armored infantrymen arrived to re-establish the outpost line. They found seven destroyed Mark IV tanks and counted more than 125 enemy dead."

DETAIL [Note, This reads as a “best defense is a good offense” story] As the four men, armed with small arms and a bazooka and carrying a dozen bazooka rounds between them, moved cautiously through the fog, the lead tanks and infantry of the 1st SS-Panzer Division were driving in the opposite direction on the main road just to the west, heading towards the south end of St. Barthelmy and the 57mm-ATgun position. Apparently Hardy's patrol knew nothing of the German advance; it is possible that the noise of the artillery barrage masked the sounds of moving tanks and the shouts of the German infantry commanders.
After walking about 300 meters down the trail, Hardy's patrol halted to get their bearings and "to see what was going to happen." A few minutes later, they heard tank noises off to their right, to the west. Sgt. Hardy crawled up onto the shrub-covered embankment to see if he could see the source. He saw a field on the other side of the hedgerow, about 70 meters wide, and another parallel hedgerow-on the other side of the field. On the other side of that hedgerow, three German tanks sat on the main road pointing north towards St. Barthelmy. The crews were standing together outside the tanks, talking noisily.

As nearly as can be determined, these tanks were part of the 1st SS-PzD's assault force which was halted on the Mortain-St. Barthelmy road by the action of the #1 gun of Lt. George Greene's 3d Platoon, B Co, 823d TD Bn, which destroyed the lead German Mk V Panther tank and blocked the road for about 40 minutes. It is likely that, while waiting for that blazing tank to be pushed from the road, the crews of these three tanks got out to discuss the situation.
hedgerows prevented them from detouring cross-country. Sgt. Hardy watched the Germans for about five minutes, barely able to see them through the murky fog. He and his men could hear the tank engines idling as their crews chatted loudly, sounding to the Americans as if they were drunk. Finally, Sgt. Hardy decided that since their job was to shoot at Germans, they might never have a better chance. Pvt. Ericcson, a Norwegian who had fled the German invasion of his country in 1940 and who "had no love for Germans," climbed to the top of the hedgerow with his bazooka."' He fired his first round into the middle of the group of men, who quickly scattered. Apparently none or few manned their tanks since they did not return fire at all. Sgt. Hardy then ordered Pvt. Ericsson to shoot at the tanks, which were probably Mk V Panthers.
Ericsson hit two-of the tanks in the engine compartment, which stopped the motors and set the vehicles on fire. The third tank was probably also hit, although just where and how badly is uncertain. Ericsson fired a total of 4 or 5 rounds, all of which hit. Smoke from the burning tanks quickly thickened the dense fog. During this whole episode, neither the tanks nor any German infantry which may have been present returned the Americans' fire.
Sgt. Hardy, deciding that they had done enough damage for one morning, led the patrol back up the trail to the 57mm gun position. When they reached the place, however, the gun, crew, and truck were gone.

10 September 1944 (Action 12)
Company C received suppressive fire from 3 German tanks, apparently unsupported by infantry, which then attacked toward the company. Company fired bazookas to no effect, and was forced to retreat. The unit suffered many casualties, many caused by tree bursts from tank rounds. Company commander killed. Mortar and artillery fire called in, but attack not stopped until P-47s (from XIX TAC) attacked the tanks.

4 November 1944 (Action 15)
After dawn, the Germans began to attack the -Americans defending Schmidt. After observed infantry infiltration, German forces consisting of approximately five tanks and one infantry battalion attacked down both roads. Bazooka fire seemingly had -no effect. The American units were effectively routed by the German armor, and by 1230 Schmidt had been recaptured by the Germans. 4 November 1944 (Action 16) At least five German tanks, with supporting infantry attacked. After a nasty battle, they were knocked out.
DETAIL Private William K. Soderman of K Co "began his own private war" by leaping into a roadside ditch with a bazooka and knocking out the lead panzer in full view of the enemy. This blocked the trail and forced the vehicles following to withdraw.

17 December 1944 (Action 19)
2/394th Infantry was holding north flank of regimental line at Murringen. At dawn the Germans attacked along the Neuhof road with tanks, directly attacking Company E. Artillery support and battalion mortar support augmented the Company's use of bazookas, with which it killed three tanks and halted the attack.
DETAIL "The result was a terrific small arms battle,"" during which Pvt Soderman of K Co continued his "private war" against the Germans. As some other panzers approached the remnants of his company, Soderman staged a repeat performance of his action earlier that morning by disabling the lead panzer with one shot from his bazooka. As he ran for cover after firing the weapon, however, one of the tanks fired a burst of machine gun fire which tore into his right shoulder.

17 December 1944 (Action 21)
Around 1930 three German tanks and perhaps a platoon of infantry passed through Company B before they were recognized as German. At approximately 2000', Company B engaged more of the same. Two tanks were disabled by mines, two others by bazookas. 15th FA Battalion provided support. An hour later, approximately 5-6 German tanks fired at the battalion for a half hour. A subsequent German infantry attack was cut down. A combined attack followed, which penetrated the battalion's position. One crippled tank was doused with gasoline and lit with thermite grenades. When the attack moved into the Company A sector, artillery "responded to the urgent call for help and within three minutes dropped in a concentration that stopped the assault." …
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Battalion had fifteen extra bazookas. One individual [William A Soderman Documented in Actions 16 and 19. (source) ] received the Medal of Honor for destroying three tanks with bazooka rounds
DETAIL Just down the street, Lt Adams quickly organized two bazooka teams, using one launcher that his group had since the beginning and another that was scrounged from a jeep parked outside. These two teams fired numerous rounds at the passing panzers, scoring "many direct hits" on them but achieving no penetrations.

20-21 December 1944 (Action 23/24)
Major activity took place defending a bridge through Hotton. Individual actions--a single U.S. tank, a PVT manning a 37 mm. gun, and a PVT with a bazooka--were most significant. In the early evening the Americans captured a sanatorium in the town. The Germans counterattacked just before midnight with armor and infantry, and recaptured the sanatorium, but were unable to breakthrough due to "accurate and incessant shellfire."
DETAIL …Private Isabel Salazar, one of Love's AT Co staff members, grabbed a bazooka and one of the newly-arrived rockets and ran upstairs from the basement to one of the first-story windows. He fired and knocked out the Panther at 200 yards with that first shot. The Panther's momentum carried it forward until it came to rest alongside the Sherman's kill, the two wrecks very effectively blocking the road. …Firing from Capt Love's AT Co CP, Pvt Salazar repeated his morning performance by knocking out one of these, a PzJg IV from the 560th Hvy PzJg Bn, as it pulled up behind the two destroyed tanks blocking the southern road.

18 January 1945 (Action 27)
German force attacked out of Orscholz Switch, with axis of attack from Sinz through Butzdorf and Tettingen. Force consisted of 2 Panzer Grenadier regiments, 30 MARK IV tanks, and 20-30 assault guns. Following a twenty minute bombardment, the German force attacked both towns. The action lasted about an hour. American forces used mines, 57-mm. guns, and bazookas against the German armor. "Shortly after 0900 the Germans fell back, but just before noon ten tanks again emerged from Sinz, took up hull defilade positions and persistently pounded the two villages. At 1430 three fresh battalions of German infantry launched a fresh assault, this time primarily directed at Butzdorf," where a single American infantry company became isolated. The American company retreated after nightfall, leaving the Germans in control of Butzdorf, while the 284th and 919th FA Battalions provided covering fire.
DETAIL One of the AT men in the CP reacted and hit the Mk IV with a bazooka round, immobilizing it, while Love maneuvered one of the other TOs around to finish it off. Evidently the bazooka round had hit the panzer's engine compartment, because even though it saw the maneuvering TO it couldn't rotate its turret fast enough to get a shot at it

23-24 February 1945 (Action 29)
The first thrust hit just before 2100, employing a mixed force of about twenty assault guns and tanks accompanied by about 150 infantry." Artillery fire dispersed the first attack; however, later thrusts penetrated into the town. Infantry killed four MARK Vs with bazookas. "What the Americans reckoned as the fourth try brought the gravest crisis. Three hours before dawn on 24 February, tanks and infantry swarmed into the village, While the Americans huddled in cellars, forward observers called down artillery fire on their own positions. By daylight the Germans had fallen back, and a count revealed a surprisingly low total of thirty American casualties."
DETAIL The AT Platoon bazooka team fired several rounds at the Panther as it approached the carcasses of the third and fourth panzers, but none of the rounds penetrated the tank's armor…. …Just as it passed in front of that building, a self-propelled TD from the 644th TD Bn, which Col Barsanti had placed near the 3/38th CP to guard against a German attack from Bollingen, fired three rounds in rapid succession into the Panther's thinner rear armor at a range of 250-300 yards. That finally stopped the rampaging Panther, and as the crew bailed out of the tank, the L Co riflemen picked them off. When the panzer's hulk was examined later, it was found to have 11 bazooka holes in it (none of which apparently penetrated all the way through the armor), as well as the three TD penetrations in the rear and whatever mark the AT gun's round had left.

If you are really interested in this subject and don’t take the time to read all four volumes of the report from which the above excerpts were pulled, you’re doing yourself a great disservice. Between the interviews, maps, and records covered, the authors make the history palpable, and it presents much that I found surprising when I first read it a few years ago (example: Airpower gets a surprising amount of credit in a few places).
What strikes me most about the report as it pertains to bazooka use, is how for every example showing great effectiveness, there seems to be another one where the showing was ‘less than stellar’. There are documented cases of single low percentage shots taking out a tank and cases where bazooka rounds are poured into a tank with little effect. Bazookas were apparently effective against even the most heavily armored tanks at times, yet more often ineffective against even the lightest-armored panzers. Yet the conclusion offered in the report (in addition to repeating the not-completely-certain but popular claim that the German Panzerfaust was an improvement on Bazookas captured in North Africa) states:
Fighting in the Battle of the Bulge completed discrediting towed guns, where the battalions still using them suffered heavier losses with less effect than self-propelled units. During this battle, many infantrymen lost faith in the towed 57m gun and afterwards argued for it to be abandoned. However, the ubiquitous Bazooka, despite its inability to penetrate frontal armor, proved effective time and time again in the hands of brave soldiers willing to maneuver for shots at the sides and rear of heavy German tanks.
That summary dresses up a somewhat ugly and uneven record of bazooka performance, given the mixed results in the data. And a weapon that proves “effective”, as long as the operators were “brave” and “willing to maneuver” to get to the more vulnerable ‘bits’ of attacking Panzers, hardly rises to a reasonable standard for bestowing the descriptor “Magnificent” .

There's not a large repository of 'bazooka hits' on the web, but this photo gets cited more often than not as what it looks like when bazookas are fired at a late model Panzer post-mortem.
Wartime exigencies that drove rapid fielding ahead of American ground combat needs to first satisfy Allied demands may have contributed to preventing the 2.36” rocket launcher from ever reaching its full lethality. In fact, the biggest ‘story of the bazooka’ may be the story of ‘what might have been?’ (which we will get to in a moment) if it had not been rushed into the field.

The Bazooka: Evolution that Occurred and Signs of a ‘Missing Link’
After the initial batch of bazookas was shipped to the Soviets, the simplicity of the weapon did allow for an incredibly steep production ramp up and quick incorporation of minor modifications. Again referring to “A History of Innovation: U.S. Army Adaptation in War and Peace”:
The Army Supply Program of 10 July 1942 set a goal of building 75,000 rocket launchers by the end of the year. With the Soviet consignment out of the way, Skinner and Uhl concentrated on getting the new weapon into the hands of American troops. Ordnance specialists made only a few changes, improving the firing mechanism, shortening the overall length by 6 inches, and placing a fixed sight at the end of the tube. Difficulties in obtaining steel tubing and production delays created by design modifications combined to limit bazooka production that month to 241 units. Most of these problems, however, were overcome within a few weeks, and more than 37,000 rocket launchers were produced for the U.S. Army by the end of October.

And exactly what was the benefit of rushing these weapons into the field? Less than unhelpful. It appears that the rapid fielding of the bazooka may have been that rare case where the weapon system gets fielded too far ahead of the troops being ready to actually employ it. The Soviets were wise enough to order training rounds first, which implies an intent to train the troops prior to combat. Sadly, in North Africa the US initially was not ready for the bazooka, in addition to having a lot of other problems:
When the Army entered combat in 1942 in North Africa, the 37mm was the standard antitank weapon in the infantry divisions along with the Bazooka which was so new that the troops were introduced to it aboard the ships sailing to invade. (Source: ANTI-ARMOR DEFENSE DATA STUDY)
Fighting in North Africa had been fierce with the Fifth Army, which included the 34th Infantry Division, suffering many casualties (4,254 men wounded, killed or missing). The blame for this large number of casualties was placed on having raw green troops when, in fact, there was a leadership and equipment problem. For example, new soldiers arriving in theater did not receive any orientation prior to their arrival and there was no initial training after their arrival. Soldiers in the Division were issued Bazooka's the day before the battle at Fondouk Pass but they did not receive any training on the weapon. As a result, the Bazooka's were ineffectively employed against the newly fielded German Mark VI tanks. (The 60 ton Mark VI Tigers were first employed in limited numbers during the battle at Kasserme-Faid Pass.) (Source: MG (RET) BENJAMIN J. BUTLER: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF LEADERSHIP ON THE BATTLEFIELD)

M6A3C On Left
Source: Inert-Ord.net

After the North Africa Campaign, there were various changes to the Bazooka design that amounted mostly to tweaks at the ‘margins’. There were a series of minor rocket/warhead design changes, the tube length changed and then a two-piece tube was fielded to increase portability. The number of pistol grips was changed from two to one, and wooden ‘furniture’ was replaced with more durable and lighter metal pieces. Possibly the most important change not having to do with the projectile was changing the ignition system from a battery-operated system to one driven by a friction generator in the trigger for increased launch reliability.
Perhaps the most important improvement was the upgrade of the Rocket and Warhead to the M6A3C configuration, with a new tail design and ogive (vs, pointed) nosecap. This change reduced the number of impacts occurring without detonation (duds) and improved reliability/accuracy by replacing the deployable fins with an annular ring/fin arrangement.
Yet the too-frequent bazooka impacts and detonation without penetration persisted through to the end of the war.
Why?

The answer may be that the operators never knew enough about their weapons, in particular the effects to be expected when a shaped-charge explosive train sequences properly, to report a particular (low-order detonation) failure mode, and the design engineers weren’t close enough to the battlefield to see the forensic evidence that would have revealed each failure to go ‘high order’ as a failure, and/or perhaps their testing methods were too crude to even find the failure mode?
Observations from two doyens of ballistics design and test indicate that this speculation may be close to the truth. Donald R. Kennedy has the design of the AGM-65 Maverick warhead, among other design credits, and is considered an authority on not only the effects of warheads on armor, but also on armor resistance to anti-armor ordnance: He’s worked both sides of the issue. (Note: through his writings, I also found him far more credible on Bradley IFV survivability than anyone I can think of in the ‘Reform’ camp.) In his HISTORY OF THE SHAPED CHARGE EFFECT: The First 100 Years, he writes [emphasis mine]:

In the Sicilian campaign, the U.S. Army's Lt. General James Gavin was to later observe (Ref. 77) that the Bazooka lacked penetration capability and that his troops were literally being crushed into the earth by German tanks they were unable to defeat. General Gavin lamented that the weapon "could have been tested against the German tanks captured in North Africa, but evidently it was not." But according to other sources, the weapons had been tested against German tanks in North Africa. In retrospect, it is possible that the problem was not in the lack of penetration of the shaped charge, but the failure of the fuzes to initiate the warhead quickly enough.
In 1951, this writer was invited to observe infantry training at Camp Roberts, California, where it was obvious that the 2.36-inch Bazookas were, for the most part, failing to detonate high order and form a jet as designed. Instead, most of the rounds were apparently functioned low order from crush-up on the target, as evidenced by the presence of many undeformed conical liners laying about on the test field. Further, the damage to the armor targets usually resembled that produced by a HEP or squash head mechanism. Even the Army instructors seemed to be unaware that their
Bazookas were malfunctioning. They described the Bazooka's terminal effect as "discharging a baseball sized chunk of metal from the far side of the armor." There was no mention of a penetration hole.
Arthur Stein, Past President and Fellow of the Military Operations Research Society (MORS) refers to Kennedy’s passage in an article collated within an Army Research Lab Special Report “Historical Perspectives on Vulnerability/Lethality Analysis” and makes further observations on the probable source of the bazooka’s failures [emphasis mine]:

In my opinion the problem was not that the Bazooka had not been tested against armor but that it indeed was the excessively long delay before the warhead functioned, and hence it had the wrong standoff and perhaps even damaged the cone before functioning. Would not that have been found out in testing? Not if the tests were static warhead tests rather than dynamic tests of the fired system. There are still many testers who believe that static tests of shaped charge warheads are preferable since then you could hit where you want to and the remaining velocity should not add any significant increase in effects. The demonstration of appropriate fuze time-to-function under realistic dynamic conditions is critical, however, as was shown by this early combat example.

Earler Rocket Configuration: Pointed Nosecap and Folding Fins

What Might Have Been
Changing the ‘standoff’ of the shaped charge would not have been more involved than other warhead design changes that were made, and from review of the many engagements where the 2.36” rockets stopped armor only after multiple hits, or not at all, it is easy to see how a more effective bazooka could have forced Germany to change its Armor tactics.
IMHO they would have been a lot less aggressive against even small and isolated infantry groups, if the Pk of the 2.36” rocket improved only slightly. If the probability of the warhead’s high-order detonation improved to just 50%, US infantry offensive tactics against armor could have possibly emerged in the hedgerows. Perhaps then, by December 1944, instead of having a surrounded Bastogne, not even the most fervent Nazi would have considered a ‘Battle of the Bulge’ scenario. We’ll never know.
Bazooka as a Case Study: Lessons Learned

There’s a long list, but two of the most important ones need to be acknowledged as from them most others will spring.
First: If you are going to rush a system into the field, you need to test the critical functions of the system until they are fully understood. You don’t have to wait to field the system until testing is complete, you just have to test it enough to first make certain it has military value, and then keep testing it though it is already fielded. There’s no guarantee you will get timely AND useful feedback from the user, nor of users in the field benefiting from the additional knowledge gained in testing, so a feedback loop is necessary -- as the Bazooka perfectly illustrates.
Second: While you can rush a system into the field before testing is complete, you cannot do so ahead of first adequately training the users. Worse than unhelpful, it can sow frustration and confusion and be counterproductive to the mission. With a relatively new technology (such as shaped-charge warheads in the Bazooka’s case) it is critical that the users understand what the weapon is actually supposed to do. Without proper training it is impossible to provide timely feedback as mentioned above.

Bazooka: the Verdict.
A militarily useful weapon that could have been ‘Magnificent’, but wasn’t.
Image

xGrayWolf
Posts: 8
Joined: 05 Mar 2017, 00:04

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby xGrayWolf » 28 Mar 2017, 16:17

Panzerblitz1 wrote:Graywolf, i never said the JT can't be pentrated from Side/Rear, read me.


oh...

Panzerblitz1 wrote:only P47 from the top and M36 guns from the sides were able to take down the JT


Yeah, I can read. Saying only M36 could is basicly saying everything else could not, lol

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3086
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Tiger1996 » 28 Mar 2017, 16:50

Can we stop such irrelevant historical/realism discussion? it does have nothing to do with the game balance.. and BK isn't meant to be a purely realistic game at all... Bk only adds some realism to CoH, but not a pure kind of realism.
If we continue this realism discussion, this game would have to completely change then; meaning no abilities at all, no more engineers repairing tanks with torches, no gliders suddenly landing above the soldiers head anymore, etc!

xGrayWolf wrote:Mathematics:
Tiger frontal armor = 100 mm
Jagdtiger rear and side armor = 80-90mm

Question is "If you could penetrate side of the JT?"
Answer is "No, cause axis bias".

This game doesn't work like this... Men of War does, Bk doesn't.

So, ye... Please let's stop arguing about Bazooka. Because in BK it's more than fine, considering its price and availability!
Otherwise on the other hand, it would be justified for some people to also complain about the LMG42 as an example, as it should actually cost less than 30 ammo according to realism.. and no longer 100 ammo.
Since LMG42s were very common and very cheap during the ww2. Not to mention that it was also available in such very high numbers, same with PanzerFausts! So, if we stick to realism... PanzerFaust should be available to every single Axis soldier.. including Pioneers...

My point here... Realism is just a secondary part of the game, and not a primary one. Only both the game balance and fun factors are what is taken into account!
================================================
Back to the subject, I just tested Tiger1 and Panther vs Croc's rear at max range with Leonida... Panther proved to be fine. However, the Tiger's cannon was indeed under-performing.. it bounced more than 10 times. Keeping in mind the Croc's rear is just 50mm of steel thinckness. I am mentioning the rear thickness of the Croc not because I am also sticking with realism! Of course not, but this was just a "keep in mind" statement.. so, it's just something to be kept in mind... Not more or less.

While I believe that this is actually causing a balance issue... Because the Croc is too tough from the front, and when it's close enough to enemy tanks; their engine would quickly burn.

I would say that my conclusions of this whole topic are:-
- Tiger1 and flak 88s shouldn't suffer that much penetrating the Croc from the rear.
- 90mm guns and 17pdr guns shouldn't suffer that much against JT from the rear.

That's all.

>>> NOTE aside <<<
SOMEHOW, we just discovered that the hidden MG bug inside the cheaper version of the KT is BACK!!! I am pretty sure it was fixed on 4.9.6 as I have absolutely no idea how it's still there now!

speeddemon02
Posts: 153
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 03:11

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby speeddemon02 » 28 Mar 2017, 17:18

The TIger I was thicker and the 100mm required more materials, but was straight walled vs the sloped 80mm of the Jagdtiger. The sloped thinner armor was better than the thicker straight.

The movie Fury was enjoyable, but the tactics used though based on reality are flawed for both Allies and Axis

The materials were not of the highest quality, but still got the job done. The crews at the end of the war were more on the Allied side than the Axis. Specially most of the crews for the Jagdtigers had no idea what their vehicle was capable of or vulnerable to.

The panzerfaust I believe only disabled the vehicle, not destroyed it

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2452
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Warhawks97 » 28 Mar 2017, 21:37

Armor and penetration is extremely difficult stuff. I read a lot of stuff by myself.... soo soo many factors you wont belive...

Like in theory HVAP was able pen x armor at y distance. But it had problems against targets beyong 700 meters due to its shape. Just a very small example.

Then effective 100 mm armor due to angel is different as real 100 mm armor that is not slopped. (Check overmatching for example)
Then there is ammo that is good against RHA armor, others against FHA armor....

There is ballistics and angel....


Also as side info: The Brits ecnountered far more tigers in france as the US did. Idk how many they faced when reaching germany but i dont think it have been this many.


And when it comes to distant combat then you also have to take gunsights into acc as well. And here germans simply outclassed their enemies.


Regarding JT: 17 pds with APDS and 90 mm should fairly penetrate JT´s rear. But most others should or could still have some issues penetrating it.




And for records: Jagdtiger crews sometimes refused shooting their targets simply as they feared being spotted and bombed by airplanes.


Off-Topic: Got this-> http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/

I also added this link to my collection:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=329&p=2033#p2033

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 28 Mar 2017, 23:17

All that to say that JT will receive more damage from 17pdr's and 90mm at the rear.
Image

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 269
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Jalis » 29 Mar 2017, 05:42

Tiger1996 wrote:

My point here... Realism is just a secondary part of the game, and not a primary one. Only both the game balance and fun factors are what is taken into account!


It could be a great excuse to do anything.

Chance for a Sherman or an hellcat to penetrate Jtiger rear is the same than for penetrate PZIV frontal armour. If not your Jtiger is just a Maus disguised in Jtiger. ... but Maus is not fun nor balanced, isnt it ? So spot the mistake.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3086
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Tiger1996 » 29 Mar 2017, 12:45

Irrelevant blabla

Spoiler: show
So what's ur point here? Do u mean that Croc's rear should be easily penetrated with 50mm Paks too? This is simply not Men of War.

And btw, the Croc rear is currently not fine... And actually needs a serious nerf - at least - just against flak 88s and Tiger1 cannon.

User avatar
Leonida [525]
Posts: 138
Joined: 26 Jun 2016, 09:25

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Leonida [525] » 29 Mar 2017, 13:32

Tiger1996 wrote:the Croc rear is currently not fine... And actually needs a serious nerf - at least - just against flak 88s and Tiger1 cannon.


Maybe off topic here, but i agree, and from corsix I dont see low %, but ingame really yes, kwk36 bounce too much on the rear, like 8-9/10, maybe a bug?
{off topic closed}

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 269
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Jalis » 29 Mar 2017, 16:36

Spoiler: show
Tiger1996 wrote:So what's ur point here? Do u mean that Croc's rear should be easily penetrated with 50mm Paks too?


Almost yes, just remove easily.

I point you avoided the question, but it is a common trick when answer could be embarrasing. Instead I can suggest you bk forum silent rule ; never answer to Jalis except if it is absolutily necessary. It is even more easy than dodge an embarrassing question.

Now the it is not men of war. Really it simply failed to be men of war, partly due to mistakes, partly due to nationalism and bias. Point last devs had hard time to correct the last one, and will probably never able to solve it completly.

For light and medium vehicles Blitzkrieg works or try to works like men of war. But it would not for high end / super heavy that are almost all germans ?
As PVP you mostly field yourself and fight against light and medium vehicles isnt it ? JTiger we spoke about are probably very rare at least at pvp, no ?

You already most of time follows the rule that prevails at men of war ; realism, so dont say bk is not men of war like a magic formula each time you have no valid anwer. ;) I would like to say that more kindly, but like you know my English is rather limited.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3086
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Tiger1996 » 29 Mar 2017, 17:22

Spoiler: show
just remove easily.

Remove what?

I point you avoided the question, but it is a common trick when answer could be embarrasing. Instead I can suggest you bk forum silent rule ; never answer to Jalis except if it is absolutily necessary. It is even more easy than dodge an embarrassing question.

Excuse me, what question did i avoid??
Look.. better don't trigger me... Cuz I can be also VERY rude, if that's what u really want.

Now the it is not men of war. Really it simply failed to be men of war, partly due to mistakes, partly due to nationalism and bias. Point last devs had hard time to correct the last one, and will probably never able to solve it completly.

W.t.f are you trying to say here? Nationalism and bias??!! Are u trying to say that somebody is actually biased and Nazi supporter or something?? Or do you mean that the devs actually can't help to be rather anything else but pro Axis all the time?? I just can't get your point at all. What on earth are you trying to achieve with such a statement?

For light and medium vehicles Blitzkrieg works or try to works like men of war. But it would not for high end / super heavy that are almost all germans ?
As PVP you mostly field yourself and fight against light and medium vehicles isnt it ? JTiger we spoke about are probably very rare at least at pvp, no ?

I still have no idea what you are talking about... Yes, the JagdTiger is quite rarely seen in PvP games.. and?

BK is only trying to add some realism to CoH, which is mainly an arcade game. That's why BK can never be like Men of War, and I think that it's obvious enough how BK is not meant to be like Men of War at all.

You already most of time follows the rule that prevails at men of war ; realism, so dont say bk is not men of war like a magic formula each time you have no valid anwer. ;) I would like to say that more kindly, but like you know my English is rather limited.

And I am not going to argue any further whether BK is mainly meant to be as realistic as Men of War or not... But if you are thinking otherwise regarding this matter, then just keep it for yourself!
Because your English apparently sucks hard, and you might be misunderstood so badly.
Sorry, couldn't say it more kindly either.. because your post is absolutely irritating, to such a huge extent! Though i am not sure if you can actually observe this fact in the first place...
=========================================================
Leonida [525] wrote:Maybe off topic here, but i agree, and from corsix I dont see low %, but ingame really yes, kwk36 bounce too much on the rear, like 8-9/10, maybe a bug?
{off topic closed}

Ya, I also think there is some sort of a bug located somewhere as it seems.. as it's surely weird to see how 88mm guns (L/56) are somehow suffering that much penetrating the Croc's rear.
While I believe that nerfing the JT's rear against 90mm and 17pdr guns is absolutely fair.. then I must also say that the Croc's rear should be slightly nerfed against 88s too... Since it can be very disappointing in terms of balance when you can't even scratch the rear of the Croc even when you manage to flank it with such a high caliber gun! Needles to say, that the Croc rear wasn't even any strong.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 269
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Jalis » 29 Mar 2017, 19:19

Spoiler: show
Tiger1996 wrote:
just remove easily.

Remove what?


Do u mean that Croc's rear should be easily penetrated with 50mm Paks too?[code][/code]

Tiger1996 wrote:
I point you avoided the question, but it is a common trick when answer could be embarrasing. Instead I can suggest you bk forum silent rule ; never answer to Jalis except if it is absolutily necessary. It is even more easy than dodge an embarrassing question.

Excuse me, what question did i avoid??


your Jtiger is just a Maus disguised in Jtiger. ... but Maus is not fun nor balanced, isnt it ? So spot the mistake.

Tiger1996 wrote:
Now the it is not men of war. Really it simply failed to be men of war, partly due to mistakes, partly due to nationalism and bias. Point last devs had hard time to correct the last one, and will probably never able to solve it completly.

W.t.f are you trying to say here? Nationalism and bias??!! Are u trying to say that somebody is actually biased and Nazi supporter or something?? Or do you mean that the devs actually can't help to be rather anything else but pro Axis all the time?? I just can't get your point at all. What on earth are you trying to achieve with such a statement?


I just say BK wanted to be realist, for TT penetration and damage, like men of war, but it had been corrupted by nationalism. It was made like that by first devs. It is like that, unlike at Vcoh, and unlike in reality, the pak 38 become better than the 6 pdr at bk, and the PIV H with front turret 50 mm and front armour 80 mm become harder to pen than the M4A3 with arounf 90 mm for both frontal glacis and turret. Czech BK era have corrected a lot of bias, but it will probably never correct all. It would cause unpleasant disturbance, because players had take habits for years now.

Tiger1996 wrote:
For light and medium vehicles Blitzkrieg works or try to works like men of war. But it would not for high end / super heavy that are almost all germans ?
As PVP you mostly field yourself and fight against light and medium vehicles isnt it ? JTiger we spoke about are probably very rare at least at pvp, no ?

I still have no idea what you are talking about... Yes, the JagdTiger is quite rarely seen in PvP games.. and?


And ? it is very simple. Most of time playing with most common vehicles at BK pvp you will follow coherent and realist rules. However You will apply a different system just for the JTiger and a few other ? Point here in the comparaison between BK and MoW is strictly limited to the target table and penetration realism ; it is the post subject. I dont suggest BK have to loose its arcade side nor make a general comparaison.

PS ; Sorry for the
Tiger1996 wrote: Are u trying to say that somebody is actually biased and Nazi supporter or something??

I dont know if it was an invitation for polemic, or something, but I will not reply to it, because it is off topic. We are speaking about target table and penetration, that means vehicles, not soldiers, divisions or BK command tree.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1096
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby JimQwilleran » 29 Mar 2017, 19:33

Jalis wrote: Czech BK era


I love it!

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Mar 2017, 19:44

:geek: Im not Czech :mrgreen:
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3086
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Tiger1996 » 29 Mar 2017, 20:05

Spoiler: show
Jalis wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:
just remove easily.

Remove what?


Do u mean that Croc's rear should be easily penetrated with 50mm Paks too?[code][/code]

Ok, then the first time you just had to say;

Spoiler: show
Almost yes, just remove "easily".

Spoiler: show
So that it would be more obvious and recognizable.

[spoiler]Anyway...

Jalis wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:
I point you avoided the question, but it is a common trick when answer could be embarrasing. Instead I can suggest you bk forum silent rule ; never answer to Jalis except if it is absolutily necessary. It is even more easy than dodge an embarrassing question.

Excuse me, what question did i avoid??


your Jtiger is just a Maus disguised in Jtiger. ... but Maus is not fun nor balanced, isnt it ? So spot the mistake.

This is the question that you think I avoided because I was embarrassed to answer??? Really?
Why would you even ask me such a question?! I already approve and also accept that JagdTiger's rear should be nerfed. Unless you actually think otherwise?

I already spotted all the mistakes... Even before you do!
What I spotted was the following:-
Tiger1996 wrote:I would say that my conclusions of this whole topic are:-
- Tiger1 and flak 88s shouldn't suffer that much penetrating the Croc from the rear.
- 90mm guns and 17pdr guns shouldn't suffer that much against JT from the rear.

Or didn't you read what I mentioned earlier? Perhaps lacking English again?!

Jalis wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:
Now the it is not men of war. Really it simply failed to be men of war, partly due to mistakes, partly due to nationalism and bias. Point last devs had hard time to correct the last one, and will probably never able to solve it completly.

W.t.f are you trying to say here? Nationalism and bias??!! Are u trying to say that somebody is actually biased and Nazi supporter or something?? Or do you mean that the devs actually can't help to be rather anything else but pro Axis all the time?? I just can't get your point at all. What on earth are you trying to achieve with such a statement?


I just say BK wanted to be realist, for TT penetration and damage, like men of war, but it had been corrupted by nationalism. It was made like that by first devs. It is like that, unlike at Vcoh, and unlike in reality, the pak 38 become better than the 6 pdr at bk, and the PIV H with front turret 50 mm and front armour 80 mm become harder to pen than the M4A3 with arounf 90 mm for both frontal glacis and turret. Czech BK era have corrected a lot of bias, but it will probably never correct all. It would cause unpleasant disturbance, because players had take habits for years now.

Oh no! Do u have some Axis phobia?
Xalibur was German, so he was Axis biased! Blab blab blab blab blab.
What if I told you that the vanilla CoH itself is actually biased toward Allies?? Relic devs are Canadians, who are pretty much nothing but Americans at the end. It's your logic after all...

But honestly, that's also what I always believed about Relic.. actually. Bk gave some glory to Axis, which was MASSIVELY missing in the vanilla game... But it was almost unplayable anyway!
Yet, Bk successfully did this while not harming PvP balance or under-grading any other side, unlike the vanilla game on the other hand.

SO. just don't come up with this bullshit again, because nobody cares about the past of BK now.. if you think the old devs were somewhat Axis biased or that they had some sort of a nationalist "Agenda"... Then you don't really have to point it out here any longer, because it does have absolutely nothing to do with the subject anyhow. As this is TRULY off-topic!

Jalis wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:
For light and medium vehicles Blitzkrieg works or try to works like men of war. But it would not for high end / super heavy that are almost all germans ?
As PVP you mostly field yourself and fight against light and medium vehicles isnt it ? JTiger we spoke about are probably very rare at least at pvp, no ?

I still have no idea what you are talking about... Yes, the JagdTiger is quite rarely seen in PvP games.. and?


And ? it is very simple. Most of time playing with most common vehicles at BK pvp you will follow coherent and realist rules. However You will apply a different system just for the JTiger and a few other ? Point here in the comparaison between BK and MoW is strictly limited to the target table and penetration realism ; it is the post subject. I dont suggest BK have to loose its arcade side nor make a general comparaison.

How exactly do u think that I applied a "different system" for the JagdTiger and few others?
I already said that JT rear as well as Croc rear should BOTH be nerfed, because in the 2 cases.. it's kinda un-balanced (firstly). Not to mention that it's also un-realistic (secondly)...

Jalis wrote:PS ; Sorry for the
Tiger1996 wrote: Are u trying to say that somebody is actually biased and Nazi supporter or something??

I dont know if it was an invitation for polemic, or something, but I will not reply to it, because it is off topic. We are speaking about target table and penetration, that means vehicles, not soldiers, divisions or BK command tree.

You don't really have to reply to it, but just stop your bullshit anti-Nazi crusades... Because it's just a game after all.


Edit:-

Jalis wrote:Instead I can suggest you bk forum silent rule ; never answer to Jalis except if it is absolutily necessary. It is even more easy than dodge an embarrassing question.

I would also like to suggest you a very "silent" Bk forum rule, which is;
Never fk up with me.. not to regret it.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 269
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Jalis » 29 Mar 2017, 21:31

Panzerblitz1 wrote::geek: Im not Czech :mrgreen:


It is not I forgot you. It is just you were not implicated in TT coding at start, nor later. Anyway you were present in past and actual era, that makes you unclassifiable.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 269
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Jalis » 29 Mar 2017, 22:46

Irrelevant blabla

Spoiler: show
Tiger1996 wrote:
I already spotted all the mistakes... Even before you do!
What I spotted was the following:-
Tiger1996 wrote:I would say that my conclusions of this whole topic are:-
- Tiger1 and flak 88s shouldn't suffer that much penetrating the Croc from the rear.
- 90mm guns and 17pdr guns shouldn't suffer that much against JT from the rear.

Or didn't you read what I mentioned earlier? Perhaps lacking English again?!


I didnt argue against up kwk36 88 90 mm and 17pdr vs rear croc, because I found nothing wrong in your request. It is very simple.

For I already spotted all the mistakes... Even before you do! , you perhaps lack of modesty here. I spotted these mistakes and corrected it years ago. I was already coding in coh mods coh you were even not present at this forum.

Tiger1996 wrote:
SO. just don't come up with this bullshit again, because nobody cares about the past of BK now.. if you think the old devs were somewhat Axis biased or that they had some sort of a nationalist "Agenda"... Then you don't really have to point it out here any longer, because it does have absolutely nothing to do with the subject anyhow. As this is TRULY off-topic!



I didnt said old dev were axis biased, I proved it. I m not sure however Panzerblitz or Markr would be happy if I launch a new serie of evil bunny, with solid argumentation, and corsix table screenshot again. No one argued against, except Spielfuhrer for a detail on mortar, even he admitted he had no more the source to support its claims.

Now it is not off topic. You re right to ask a jagdtiger rear armour nerf. What I say, is it would be applied, to all guns, not only for a few. It is very close from I often said, actual TT is not coherent.

At this time chance for a US 76 mm to pen 80 mm frontal of a PIVH is high. Chance to pen 80 mm rear jtiger ? absolutly none. It simply cant. If you want TT screenshot I can provide it.

There very low rear multiplier for german super heavy is inherited from old devs, like most TT incoherences.

Consequence I said apply to Jtiger a coherent rule like it could apply for about all others vehicles.

I feel you more on the emotial, than rational registry today. If had to give an argumentation against myself to plead for a rational and realist TT it would be. In a rational and realist TT some Super heavy tank would not be penetrated frontally at all, perhaps even not by 90 mm using classical AT shells. The problem is how many ressources would cost a frontally invulnerable tank ? there is here a balance prb. would a game be fun when a player will bet all on a single vehicle ? Here I could be limit off topic, I admit.


Tiger1996 wrote: You don't really have to reply to it, but just stop your bullshit anti-Nazi crusades... Because it's just a game after all.


You are the lone one to speak about nazism. If it is a trap it is a very rough one, and it is a second failure. What do you think ? You have to say nazi for I enter In a violent polemic mode and people will come to help you ?

In the worst case I can just point the interresting lapsus Bk gave some glory to Axis. I think axis was more shameful than glorious during the WWII, but it is a matter of opinion.

Tiger1996 wrote:Never fk up with me.. not to regret it.


I m scared. You are really a bad boy treatening people like that.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3086
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Tiger1996 » 29 Mar 2017, 23:00

Irrelevant blabla

Spoiler: show
Jalis wrote:I m scared. You are really a bad boy treatening people like that.

Don't play the victim now... It won't work.
This:-
Tiger1996 wrote:I would also like to suggest you a very "silent" Bk forum rule, which is;
Never fk up with me.. not to regret it.

Was a direct response to this:-
Jalis wrote:Instead I can suggest you bk forum silent rule ; never answer to Jalis except if it is absolutily necessary. It is even more easy than dodge an embarrassing question.

It's your own modesty, your treatment... Or what? You don't like to be answered the same way how you respond others?

In the worst case I can just point the interresting lapsus Bk gave some glory to Axis. I think axis was more shameful than glorious during the WWII, but it is a matter of opinion.

Yes, Bk gave some glory to Axis which was COMPLETELY missing in the vanilla game... The vanilla game was pro Allied, almost unplayable generally.. that's my opinion too.
Do you think I am afraid to say it or something? It's nothing but just a game after all.
And the Allies were just as shameful as Axis during ww2.. USA dropping 2 Nuks on Japan, no?

The problem is how many ressources would cost a frontally invulnerable tank ? there is here a balance prb.

You are the last one i want to hear speaking about balance... Comp Stomper.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 269
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Jalis » 29 Mar 2017, 23:16

Irrelevant blabla

Spoiler: show
Tiger1996 wrote:You don't like to be answered the same way how you respond others?.


I would like answers, with facts and solids with solid argumentation, but it seems it is something you are not able to produce tod
ay.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3086
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Tiger1996 » 29 Mar 2017, 23:33

Irrelevant blabla

Spoiler: show
I don't produce facts, I can only point them! :P
Just don't come up with your so called "Bk forum silent rule" again... My dear uncle Jalis.

User avatar
Leonida [525]
Posts: 138
Joined: 26 Jun 2016, 09:25

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Leonida [525] » 29 Mar 2017, 23:46

I think that with complete realism would be difficoult to balance factions, and especially it would need a complete rework of availability of all units and all their prices, not a worth work in my opinion, it's balanced and fair right now, with partial realism. if 80mm armor are different from a tank to another tank this is justified "again" by availability and price.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 269
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Jalis » 29 Mar 2017, 23:58

Irrelevant blabla

Spoiler: show
Tiger1996 wrote:I don't produce facts, I can only point them! :P
Just don't come up with your so called "Bk forum silent rule" again... My dear uncle Jalis.


dont act like if you didnt had understand. I was awaiting you produce clever anwer, not fabricate evidence.

the silence bk rule is an allusion / a wink, but you was not the target ;)

I think we can close now, I feel you turn a bit angry, I dont want encourage you in this way. Have a good night little nephew Tiger1996.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3086
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Tiger1996 » 30 Mar 2017, 00:22

Irrelevant blabla

Spoiler: show
Jalis wrote:the silence bk rule is an allusion / a wink, but you was not the target ;)

I think we can close now, I feel you turn a bit angry, I dont want encourage you in this way. Have a good night little nephew Tiger1996.

Hmm, okay... I also think we have had enough.. and yes; I probably have to admit that I was really upset that I almost completely forgot about the fact that you are actually 50 years old :shock: 30 years older than I am :!: A whole generation... :o

I should definitely show some respect next times! Sorry for my language.
And have a good night for you too, sir :)

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1297
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: JgTiger rear armor

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 30 Mar 2017, 10:51

Another good exemple of how to make a topic going south with full of useless ranting pages, i don't want that no more guys, this is topic pollution, i mean it.
Image


Return to “Bugs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest