shift8

The nature of the damage is totally irrelevant. Seriously I dont know what you guys on about with this. A Partial Penetration has NOT made it through the plate, and while it may cause damage, it does NOT meet the penetration criteria of the United States or any other nations. Which means that when we are determining if the guns are performing right ballistics, you CANT count PP's, because if anyone were testing this IRL, PP's would NOT be counted. That is just the fact of the matter. Whether or not a Sherman can pulverize a Tiger into submission is not what is being debated. For example, at 500m, M62 APCBC penetrated 115mm of plate @ 0. According to US penetration criteria, that means that on 50% of hits, the the projectile passed completely through the plate. It didnt get stuck in it, it wasnt lodged, they didnt count spalling, bulges or whatnot. Only projectiles that made it through the armor more or less in one piece. Similar standards are for the KwK and Russian tests of the US 76mm. Honestly, the best explanation Ive seen so far is Vanir's suggestion that the Tiger's armor was of higher BHN, which might make positive difference for the armor so long as its below 375BHN. WW2BnG however stated that the Tiger armor resisted like normal plate in most tests, despite the somewhat higher hardness. Who knows. I dont know if that is historically accurate or not, but given that the KwK is also failing, its seems plausible.

Well, were talking about two different tanks shooting at two different targets. SO there might be problem with the Sherman vs Tiger and Pz4 vs Tiger, but not Sherman vs Pz4. Shatter gap only occurs under certain Armor to penetration ratios. I have no idea why the 75mm gun KwK 48 is having the same problems with the Tiger, since it is not supposed to be susceptible to shatter gap. But this hardly puts the issue squarely with me. For people defending shatter, then we have a problem EITHER way. The way I see it is this, 1. Both guns fail against the Tiger. 2. So either shatter is effecting both, which both parties would probably disagree with. 3. Or Shatter isnt a thing, and we have a problem where both guns are failing despite all indications that they should--esp the KwK 48 since its a bit more powerful at 500m. So clearly SOMETHING is going on there. MAYBE shatter is the culprit. Either way IMO something isnt right here with these guns performance vs the Tiger.

Im not sure I get what in this thread to help me. The part you sent seems to have more to do with the PAnzer gun, not the Shermans. Which BTW, I see no issue with the way its modeled right now, but maybe it was changed since that thread? I dont know.

Just because the Partially penetrated does by no means imply they did not shatter. As Rexford details, Shatter can STILL penetrate, if the penetration to armor ratio is higher. Thats why, according to him, you get the gap. As close range it succeeds, then fails at medium, then succeeds again. Not every Shatter failure means the round blew up into confetti on impact. The Shatter is caused by high nose forces due to armor being pushed out of the way too rapidly. The Shatter can very well occur more often than not after the round has penetrated a certain amount into the armor.

No that is not what it means. Spalling is just mild flaking on the inside of the armor. A Partial penetration could cause VERY severe "spalling" such as large chunks of plate flying through the tank in a manner similar to what a HESH rounds tries to do on purpose. I mean seriously people, If you start add PP's as "penetrations in general" then we have some very weird things going on in this game. 75mm M3 Penetrating PZ4 80mm at 1500m? And thats just the first think I can think of, PP does not = P

Oh come now. Just because the word is in there does not mean they are the same. A penetration passes through the armor, and a PP only makes it part of the way through(and therefore is not really a PP, its is just a shell that has become lodged). Can a PP be effective at killing a tank? Sure... but thats not relevant to a ballistics discussion. This thread is not about general combat effectiveness. A PP would not be a valid P by any nations criteria, so it does nothing to address the failures with regard to 76mm performance based on penetration tables. They simply didnt count rounds that didnt make it through, no matter what after effects a big bulge in the inside might have caused. (The Americans even define PP in one test, I think firing test one at isigny, where they say it is a bulge on this inside that light does not pass through--meaning the plate is not breached.) So in summary, a Partial Penetration is NOT a breach in the tanks armor, it is just referring to the round making it PART of the way through the plate---BUT NOT actually through it..........hence what we have actual penetrations for!

Huh? Those numbers arent that much diferent from than what I posted........ You cant count a PP as a penetration......The round hasn't gone through the armor-----just because it can cause damage does not matter.

Sure, projectiles can shatter. The dispute is whether or not it affects 76mm M62 so greatly that it happens almost every time. When I say shatter gap isnt a thing, I am referring to its relationship with M62 APC, specifically the severity of it. The fact that rounds can shatter is beyond doubt. I've even said that or implied that several times already. If my posting made this unclear, then my bad. As for the Tank.net people you mentioned, respectfully, I dont take anyone on a forum seriously---at least not like that. It means absolutely nothing to me with regards to who are the "big shots" of the forum space. They are probabaly good people and smart/ knowledgeable etc, but their lack of objection doesnt mean a thing to me. Rexford is a Published author, one I that I agree with totally except on this issue, and I'm not changing my mind just because of that. I'd imagine that I have read the same threads you have, especially since I have seen both of those names in Rexfords Tank net threads on the subject. What I do not buy at all, is the modeling in game, where the great majority of M62 APCBC fails. As I pointed out eariler, several nations M-62 AP values prove beyond doubt that the M-62 does not shatter agaisnt the specified armor thickness's, at least within a 50% success margin. IMHO, I dont see how that can be reasonable disputed. If the Shattering problem, which arose from one manufactures rounds as stated previously, was so severe as it is in game-----Then it would be evident in those nations tests, as it would have reduced the 50% penetration values.

Maybe, but If there are I havent seen them. I havent seen any offical sources discuss it, and anyone a forum talking about brings up Rexford. But there could be. If someone has it, bring it forward

1. It refers to the American experience. 2. Sure, is it not possible that the rounds used were of a poor batch? As I recall, Rexford only shows 4 hits that shattered in his book. Hardly a statistical cornerstone. 3. In Summary, he inserts shatter gap into those 3 inch tests as the cause. Perhaps in some cases there was a shatter issue. But hardly grounds for the conclusions he comes to later with his rather precise charts. 4. That is a unreasonable assumptions IMO. The Isigny tests were hardly scientific in nature, and essentially amounted to "hey lets get some panthers and lob some stuff at them." Heck, the Panther wasn't even on level ground. Do we even know the hits were at normal? As I recall those tests make no mention of that. And I think its a dangerous precedent to simply assume unknown factors, especially when trying to prove something that doesnt have any actual data specially meant for the purpose. Even if we consider the testers as competent as you mention, they might have considered any hit on the mantle a fair hit when you consider that in they eyes of the tester, it might not have been considered practical to single out the center mantle since its very possible that round would not strike that area in battle. And I'd like to point out again that the American penetration tables, and penetration tables for the same gun from other nations verify the 76mm guns performance with 50% success criteria. IF shatter gap was a thing, it only exists on the other sides of that. Besides this, Ill say again that the section on this is Rexfords book is totally guess work. Maybe there was a shatter potential for the M62 (as if any round isnt susceptible to this under the right conditions) but the extreme stance of Rexford and the game is not justified without better proof IMO.

That is another issue, there were 3 manufacturers, and according to on the threads Rexford was in, only the rounds made by Chevrolet had the issue. So 1 out of 3.

Here is data for people to reference for anyone who needs it. Penetration tables: http://amizaur.prv.pl/www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/introduction.html Rexfords book: http://vk.com/doc67707672_338610150?hash=22e03378f78ea04905&dl=958ae1a9265ab60d1b (includes penetration at normal)

Id like to note one thing while were discussing this. There might very well be a threshold for rounds with less than 59 rockwell hardness failing at certain velocities, BUT it would HAVE to fall inside the tolerances of the other data. Specifically, there is the are the American and other nations penetration tables for the 76mm gun, which are more or less in agreement. And there are the shoeburyness tests where M62 defeats 100mm plate at 30degrees at least twice, which is higher than the average values for 50% success criteria. So the way I see it, some rounds might shatter, but they'd be inside that other 50% of shots, and they would be sharing that space with rounds that penetrated more than the 50% success criteria allows for. Sidenote: Overall I think BFC and Rexford have their stuff very squared away, this is really the only issue I have found in CMx2.

My test scenario could be duplicated easily. Place two Tigers On one side on flat terrain at specified Range. Then place several shermans shoulder to shoulder opposite them. Make sure Tigers and shermans are immobilized to keep them from changing angle or moving. Make sure angle is as close to normal as feasible.

There are no test firing agaisnt Tigers with the 76mm gun that show shatter gap. To my knowledge, there arent any Tiger vs 76mm tests at all, Rexford certainly didnt mention any. The only historical anecdotes I recall him using that specifically mentioned Tigers were from "Faint Praise," which were supposedly from Normandy and therefore impossible. As I mentioned before, there were no Tigers at all on the American front during Normandy, and only 3 confirmed engagements after that. His argument was that supposedly the low nose hardness of USSR and USA ammo caused the armor to displaced too quickly when armor penetration was "too high". About a factor to 1.22. The idea was that at close range you would penetrate because the AP power was so high as to compensate, and then shatter in between, and then penetrate again as velocity decreased. Honestly, that sounds like nonsense to me from the start. He his main data points were some 3 inch gun tests with M-62 and some British 6 pounder tests. I will detail his points and my specific concerns below. 1. Faint praise is the only insinuated actual Tiger v Sherman account, and its demonstrably a case of poor anecdotal evidence. 2. British 6 pounder tests where rounds shattered on a Tigers side armor. Interesting, but not 76mm gun tests, and he makes the assumption that shatter gap is a cause. 3. 3 inch test firing against 3 inch plate at 30 degrees and 40 degrees. He takes these and records the velocity ratios of rounds that failed to penetrate (apparently disregarding all ones that didnt fail) then presumes that the reason certain rounds failed was due to his theory about shatter, and then builds he tables from it. The entire thing is a massive Non-Sequitur comprised of circular logic, as the "gap" is not necessarily the cause. Keep in mind the main issue here is that he is inserting shatter gap as the cause of failures in several non-connected tests, is a potential explanation. 4. He also mentions the Isigny Panther tests where 76mm penetrated the mantle at 200m rather than 500m. Once again, he assumes shatter gap could be the cause, despite the fact that not very many rounds were fired in the first place, and we dont know how they struck the mantlet. I might be forgetting something, Im sure someone will correct me on it

Im not sure how I could have said that any other way. I just said that you should read the previous sections, since you didnt seem to know that I had mentioned the tests. There isnt any attitude man, just directing you to something it appeared to me you missed. As you the second quote, I used the word "testing", which to me at least means "testing" as opposed to general play. Sorry for the confustion, but I dont know how else I could have worded that. As for my numbers: I did 100 test firings on flat terrain for each range (at normal). I tested at 500m, 800m, and 1000m. I recorded PP's and hits as non penetrations, and penetrations as, well...penetrations. At 500m, I got 74 failures and 26 success's. 800m was 79 failures and 21 pens. 1000m was 68 failures and 32 pens. I dont have any test files, and dont know how I would make one. But there are some other tests on these forums that got very similar numbers. No I cant prove it, but if you have any doubts do some testing on your own, I guarantee you'll get the same results. As for battlefront, Im presuming that they already know this is the case. I dont need to convince them that their gamer operates in a certain way, since they are well aware that this is the case. The crux of the issue is whether or not it should be that way at all. Rexford has mad several posts on the subject on these very forums, and from other tinkering I have done, it appears that CMx2 follows his book practically to the T. BF has even stated (on these forums no less) that he was a significant contributor to the game. Anyhow, Im glad you find my post interesting. There isnt any "attitude" here, like I said, from what you posted it seemed to me like you hadnt read my older posts.

Read the previous sections of the thread, in which i detail the fact that I have done tests

Inspiration would be a accurate word yes. The chart I posted would be an example of an alternate measurement. Honestly debating that Panthers armor doesnt mean that much to me. I am finding hard, despite my last two test to tell if 76mm makes it through the mantlet at 500m or not. It keeps saying "weapon mount" penetration for every hit on the mantlet. I suppose this refers to the mantlet in general. Taking a closer look at the hits, there are penetrating hits on the flat part, and not on the curves near the top and bottom. No idea how precise the hit markers are.

I listed the other things he mentions in his book, so clearly there is no intent to be disingenuous. He uses Faint Praise as the Primary BASE for the historical precedent for this idea. Without baileys book, he doesnt have any real world reason to look into shatter gap at all with regards to the 76mm and Tiger specifically. I dont know if you read the first part of the post, but I went over in detail what I think of ALL the major points he makes on this issue, not just the anecdotes from Faint Praise, so lets not try to insinuate I left the other stuff k? Because its in print at the beginning of this thread. I didnt retype all 4 pages dedicated to it in this forum, but this argument has never been based on the idea that the only thing in Rexfords book was excerpts from Faint Praise. In Fact, it seems a little disingenuous to insinuate that I did. The fact of the matter is this: unlike the rest of his book, the section on Shatter Gap is a whole lot of pieced together guess work that is in direct odds with other data. He takes several other tests, some of which have nothing to do with the 76mm gun, a few historical anecdotes that can be easily shown to have no basis in fact (Faint Praise) and then build upon those a entire theory to explain how they all mesh together. In short, he insert shatter gap into series of things that make no specific mention of it, when there could be an almost infinite number of alternative explanations---Especially since some of them dont have anything to do explicitly with the 76mm gun. Not to mention the contradictory data. It is a matter of fact, a borne out by US gun testing, that M62 APCBC will penetrate more than 100mm armor at 1000m at LEAST 50% of the time. Some rounds would penetrate more, other less, on the other side of that 50%. This is borne out of the Shoeburyness tests that show at least two rounds penetrating 100 plates at 30 degrees. IF there is a shatter gap effect, it would reside somewhere in that other 50%. Meaning that in a worse case scenario, 1 out of every 2 rounds should make it though the plate. If you fired 10 rounds, at least 5 would penetrate, with some of the other 5 doing better, and some doing worse. But at least 5 would meet the specs as an average. Right now in CMBN, FAR FAR less than half of 76mm hits penetrate an amount of armor equal to the Tigers front from normal. As for the Panthers frontal armor, obviously there is some kind of manufacturing issue going on here. The document dates the Panther from 1943, and it wouldn't be the first time that Panthers of different models had different armor specs. Different sources on the internet disagree as to what the thickness of the turret and the mantlet are, so I'm going to chock that up to different models until I find something more definitive. According to Rexford, some Panther G's had 50mm nose plates, which is reflected in game since if you choose certain models of the G in CMBN, the 76mm M1 will penetrate at 500m, whereas on a A model it will not.

For Sure, but its still ridiculous. It was barely a problem at all in CMx1, not that that is in and of itself a good counter argument to BF. I agree with most of what is in Redford and Livingston's book, but this Shatter Gap thing is pure witchcraft. He even states in his book that it is less reliable than the other parts. All of the testing shows that the 76mm gun should be passing though 100mm (ish) plate with reletive ease, at the very least out to 800m, at least 50% of the time. Same with the 85mm. The entire theory originates from anecdotal reports from tankers who were misreporting the tanks they were engaging. Post Normandy, when there actually were Tiger tanks facing the Americans in certain sectors of the front, there are only 3 verified encounters of Sherman's fighting Tigers. Of those, I have never seen any data showing any of them were 76mm Shermans, and even if some of them were, 3 engagements would hardly tell us anything, much less provide precise information on some kind of shatter gap. You would need tons of engagements with Tigers to make any kind of assumption like that. And this is of course all irrelevant since the excerpts from Bailey's book Rexford uses as a base are supposed to have been in Normandy, where not so much as a single Tiger lurked on the American side of the front.

The mantlet is 110mm thick, not 100mm. The front turret is 100mm. Ive seen this stated in Rexfords book and its one of a few typos in there. (the T-33 AP values being another....) I completely agree though regarding cast armor reducing its resistance though. Sidenote: after a few hours I have completed more extensive tests on the front of the panther. Contrary to my previous post, 76mm M62 seems to penetrate the mantlet and front turret at 500m very rarely at normal, despite having 16mm more penetration than necessary......

I figure they wont change it, but out of principle I feel the need to bring it up. 85mm does suffer the problem. It is perhaps slightly less so, but the majority of hits on the Tiger front with the 85mm are not penetrations, even at zero. As for the 76mm, in over 100 test firings I got far less penetrations than you indicate for the 76mm. Keep in mind im not counting PP's. More than 2/3rds of all hits at as close to zero as possible were defeated in some manner.

I would like to see what battlefront has to say about this As a side note, the 76mm gun can penetrate the front turret of the panther apparently with ease, and its also 100mm thick. It also seems to get though the 110mm thick mantlet so long as the impact of the rounds is no too far off center and not at a high angle.

APCR doesnt have any problems getting through, which I think might be the reason you havent had issues with the Tigers armor since quite a few of the T-34s have about 3 rounds of APCR. When they fire APCBC, rounds from the 85mm and 76mm routinely bounce off the front of the Tiger, even the 100mm superstructure. Like I was saying earlier, this happens the majority of the time. It even appears to be the case with the 75mm gun on the Pz4, which I have not tested extensively, but doing a few runs yielded what appears to be similar results. This is odd, as the KwK 48 is ever so slightly more powerful than the aforementioned cannons, and according to the shatter gap myth should not have the same problem. Rexford even mentions in his book that his section on shatter gap is no as precise as the other sections, which makes sense given that it is predicated entirely on loosely connected and inconclusive evidence that is very much at odds with other data.