Ads
related to: tiger 2 armor thickness measurement scale for wood
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An R.A.C 3.d. document of February 1945 estimated that the British (76.2 mm) QF 17-pounder gun, using armour-piercing discarding sabot shot was theoretically capable of penetrating the front of the Tiger II's turret and nose (lower front hull) at 1,100 and 1,200 yd (1,000 and 1,100 m) respectively although, given the lack of a stated angle ...
At 6.24 m (20.5 ft), the length of the KwK 43's barrel was over 1.3 metres longer than of that of the 8.8 cm KwK 36 used for the Tiger I.The cartridge of the KwK 43's shell was also considerably longer (at 82.2 centimetres (32.4 in)) and wider than that of the KwK 36's, meaning that the KwK 43 allows for more room for a heavier propellant charge in its cartridge case than the KwK 36 could.
The Tiger had 100 mm of armor on the front of the hull and turret, while the sides had 80mm of armor. Armor was weakest on the rear of the turret. Americans and British tank forces first encountered the German Tiger I in North Africa, where it outclassed the British Churchills and American M4 Shermans .
The turret had a maximum armor thickness of 279 mm (11.0 in) [4] compared to 185 mm (7.3 in) [5] on that of the German Tiger II, increasing to 305 mm (12.0 in) on the mantlet; and had a traverse speed of 18 degrees per second, taking 20 seconds for a full rotation. The gun was able to elevate 20°+/-10° from horizontal.
The 8.8 cm KwK 36 was derived from the 8.8 cm Flak 36 anti-aircraft gun by adapting/modifying it to the limited space available in tank turrets. Parts of the KwK 36 were built to practically the same design as the 75-millimetre (3.0 in) and 50-millimetre (2.0 in) guns already used in German tanks.
The IS-2's 122 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger's front armour from between 1,500 and 2,500 m (0.93 and 1.55 mi), depending on the impact angle. [64] However, according to Steven Zaloga, the IS-2 and Tiger I could each knock the other out in normal combat distances below 1,000 m. [69]
An illustration of why sloped armour offers no weight benefit when protecting a certain frontal area. Comparing a vertical slab of armour (left) and a section of 45° sloped armour (right), the horizontal distance through the armour (black arrows) is the same, but the normal thickness of the sloped armour (green arrow) is less.
[2] [3] The coating was normally ridged to increase the distance between the magnet and the armor even further, as the high points on the pattern increase the effective thickness of the coating while minimising additional weight. The mixture had the consistency of a thick paste or putty.
Ads
related to: tiger 2 armor thickness measurement scale for wood