To stick my gun in the vision slit of a tiger, or not...

Debate can be located here: http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread ... ge=1&pp=10

I posted

Someone else posted

Now, I have heard from here and other places that the Tiger tank did indeed have bullet proof glass covering the vision slits. I have also seen a stel "curtain" that is lowered to defend the driver from attack. So what's the deal here?

 

All the German tanks had armoured glass strong enough to stop small caliper anti-tank rounds. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

Christian

 

Just in case i'm asked to present sources, you mind feeding me a few?

 

Every museum vehicle I've seen

There are a couple of photographs from the inside of a Tiger here: http://tiger1.info/saumur/english/driver.html

Christian

 

Only one thing will happen and that is you make it impossible to see trough as you'll crack the glass!
So it is usefull, but you won't kill the crew!

 

if it is shot several could the glass eventually break due to the fatigue on the glass?

 

From what I've read, the glas could take a lot of beating - and fireing into the tank right in front of you, will kill you, as the bullets will deflect (just like you wouldn't fire directly into a steel wall, and glass is harder than steel).

Christian

 

I can't think of any WW II tank that did not have a glass block protecting the vision slot. Maybe some of the light tanks or armoured cars made without, but all the main tanks had them.

One of the problems early T-34s and KV-1s suffered from was that poor quality glass made it difficult to see through the vision slots.

 

Ahh , "Panzer Glass" , was made to protect visual orifices on the tank from bullets and possibly flames , the same glass was later used on fighter planes.

 

tis may be of some interest then.

WO 291/1646, Testing of plastic armour, "bullet proof" glass, mild steel and
armour plate as protection against small arms fire under Malayan conditions
This report indicates that the following number of quarter-inch thicknesses of plastic armour, or SIGLA

bullet-proof glass, are needed to protect against small arms:

Protection type Thickness in mm Protects against SAA from

1 thickness of plastic armour 6mm pistol at 25-30 yds

2 thicknesses of plastic armour 13mm 0.3" from M2 carbine

6 thicknesses of plastic armour 38mm 0.303" from no.4 rifle

Light SIGLA bulletproof glass 25mm pistol

Heavy SIGLA bulletproof glass 60mm 0.303" from no.4 rifle

The report also comments on the "warm round" effect, whereby small-arms ammunition (SAA) left in the
sun to heat up produces a higher muzzle velocity than it otherwise would. Also noted is the curious
fact that the M2 carbine round penetrates oak better at 200 yards than it does at 50 feet, which is
attributed to the yawing of the bullet close to the muzzle.

 

The Osprey book on the Pz.IV (wrong tank, but hey) notes that the armoured glass in the vision slots of most early-war German tanks was a rather greenish colour.

Where do you find these buffoons Danyel?

 

Anywhere but here, Ricky. Anywhere but here.

 

I have to admit I'm impressed by that link Danyel. Flammable tank-tracks... :roll: Some of those people are in a league of their own. I especially like the idea of the periscope making the tank vulnerable to small arms fire, does this guy realise that it just bends light not the path of the bullets?

 

I remain very glad that I only visit here & tgplanes - both boards were the majority of posters actually know their subject.

Danyel - why on earth do you stick with these boards?

 

Because i'm an asshole, haven't you figured that out?

But seriously, I do come accross some good ones like Dudemaestro.

 

:lol:

I prefer to look at it another way. By correcting (Or trying to correct) these misconceptions you're doing a bit to stop someone else reading that site and assuming that must be true simply because no-one else has tried to argue the point. I'd do the same thing (Except that I don't have time to participate in so many forums), so I content myself with here and a handful of others.

Even here every so often someone will come along with something that is blatantly untrue (.303 bullets can't penetrate the metal skin of a Bf109 :roll: ), but fortunately these posts/posters seem very few and far between here.

 

lol - maybe we should have a 'Quest for Correct Facts' and dash between forums, righting wrongs and slaying ignorance wherever we find it...

Frankly it looks like the internet would benefit. I just had a quick google search on 'tank forums' and found umpteen with the usual 'Sherman = tommy cooker = crap' statements, and 'T-34 is the best tank ever, no the Tiger I is' debates. :roll:

 

Attempting to do so would be futile, as there are many who denies facts in favour of myths.

Christian

 

That is why there are historians. There should be some popular historian with an idea of physics who writes a book about the facts of World War II equipment, I guess...

 

Sadly, popular historians tend to write popular history, rather than facts.

Hence why so few academics can stand Simon Scharma.
(Ok, he is good within his own field [18th C?] but honestly, the guy totally screwed up on his Norman Conquest details - it looks as though he did not even bother to read any source material :roll: )