Operational Discussion

[Imp]

I actualy gave you the info so you could make a good guestimate if you disagree.
If look up thickness then add a bit for hardness (about 15-20% better than comparable British stuff for the time) you have your answer. As its only slightly off vertical could probably ignore slope calculation.
The hardest part of the info to find tends to be the Brinell rating (toughness) which might give it +1 on the armour rating if not factored in.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by Imp

I actualy gave you the info so you could make a good guestimate if you disagree.
If look up thickness then add a bit for hardness (about 15-20% better than comparable British stuff for the time) you have your answer. As its only slightly off vertical could probably ignore slope calculation.
The hardest part of the info to find tends to be the Brinell rating (toughness) which might give it +1 on the armour rating if not factored in.

I think the gun manlet was worth 100-120mm alone! But as it's been a while since I knew what I thought was the correct amount, I will have to pass on discussing it until the day comes that i use them or face them. It seems most people want to say that the armor of the Tiger and the KTiger were the worst instead. The KTiger it seems, was more armored but with less dependable armor. Probably still better overall than the Tiger, but if the Tiger is seriously underrated in armor then the KTiger should at least present a vicious force. I don't think I have any problem with the KTIger ratings. The blasted Panther, not an armored juggernaut exactly, actually has 2pts. more in the FT area. Just not right that 12 Tiger FT, but that's my problem alone.