shift8

Again, Im not saying the entire model is wrong, only the performance of certain guns vs this specific tank. It is entirely possible that they got 99% correct and made a mistake here and there, in fact, it is absolutely Impossible that everything is perfect. Tons of other people on this forum have questioned all sorts of things on the armor model in this game, there decades worth of threads on it. Like I stated, I dont think im being ridiculous to have one single problem with it. I mean for heavens sake, Vanir also thinks there is a problem here, but to him its the LACK of shatter gap that is a problem. Everyone's argument here, not just mine depends upon what a partial penetration is. No one else is bringing anything to the able either, seeing as we've been arguing the definition alone for about 2 pages. So where is your plea for them to shut up? And yes, unless we get acknowledgement from BFC saying one way or another, nobody knows. But several peoples ideas on what a partial pen could be are not rational. If BFC made some irrational labels, I'll believe it when they say it. Until then, it is not reasonable to suggest that the labels mean anything beyond exactly what they say. But since you want to bring up the accuracy of the game, have you even thought about said accuracy in the context of other tanks and guns in this game if you DID count a PP as just a slow P? If you did we'd have alot more problems in this game, things that Rexfords book would certainly be opposed to. Unless of course you think Rexford would argue the M3 gun on the Sherman should be able to perforate a Pz4 80mm lower hull well over 1000m (I see that all the time). And thats only one example, we could be here all day pointing out things like that. How about the Panther mantle for example? There are people here who dont think it should be penetrated beyond 200m, yet if were counting PP's it most certainly does at least out to 500m.

Oh good, your back! We aren't talking about shatter gap specifically any more, do try to keep up will you? And MY argument was never that the U.S. Army definition was used one for one. The lack of CM DOES make that clear. It does not prove that simply because they lumped CM in with one of the two other words, that the army's definition of a PP, and mine, are not compatible. What that also DOES NOT prove is that your perspective on how CMBN defines it is true. It is a non-sequitur to argue that just because BFC didn't use CP, and therefore didn't use all the army terms, then we just throw it all out and use your definition of PP, where the word partial has not meaning whatsoever, since you said it was a round that penetrated at a lower energy state as I recall. Therefore you have not proven that Partial penetrations are not what I say they are. And for that matter, I never stated that the BFC did use the Army terms one for one, my intent was to demonstrate how people my might normally define rounds that do not PTP.

Funny how were using information you didnt agree with to support your "proof." Suddenly the Army definitions are relevant again to the game that doesnt use them.

Good, your lack on input here will help the conversation go somewhere useful. You do not have proof. Where has BFC stated they agree with you? Show us the writing on the wall if you have it. A CP by any logical process would be part of CMBN PP section. Any the lack of spalling being mentioned is completely meaningless. They werent doing a damage test, they were doing a ballistic one. Im not even going to dignify your last bit with the smiley with a response, simply refer to the first part of the this reply.

And I keep pressing upon you that you have no reason to think that. BFC hasn't said anything either way. And defining it outside the most common sense interpretation of the words is downright silly. The words "partial penetration" simply do not infer in way what-so-ever that the round passes though the plate. I mean think about this, if it did, it would derive all meaning from the word Penetration, and the having those two distinct labels would lose all efficacy. In my estimation, there simply isnt any reason to twist PP into something other than a round that PARTIALLY makes it thought the armor unless your going out of your way to justify the armor model in this case. There isnt anything at all about the words partial penetration that imply thats the round performed just like a "penetration" at a somewhat lower energy state. That is a completely made up point of view that has nothing to do with the description itself. If we are going to start throwing out the obvious meaning of words and tacing whatever we fancy to them, then we are rapidly going to render the English language rather moot.

According to what Rinaldi stated, which is line with my own experience, PP only kills about 30% of the time. Which is what I would expect from a round that doesn't make it through the armor, but depending on how far it got, might send huge chunks of the armor through the tank. People keep getting results mixed with what is physically occuring. To you second question: Perhaps I misunderstand your sentence, but as I define a PP, none of the projectile gets through the armor as a missile. It either is stuck in the armor, or perhaps a bit of it is poking through the armor, but it is lodged, and any damage that was done was not from the projectile itself, but secondary effects-----such as displaced armor being dislodged and causing damage. Not unlike what a HESH round attempts to do on purpose. But once again, to your last bit, this is not about the "effectiveness of the gun," but about determining if they are performing to spec. With regards to that, whether or not a PP does damage and kills the tank is not relevant, since such a thing would not have been measured by any nation as a penetration when the gun was tested for the purpose of recording penetration tables. Ergo, when we compare the Tigers armor to the AP power of the guns in this thread, according to the tech specs we should be seeing shells that completely pass through the plate as a missile, since that is what the AP charts recorded. Nations did not count rounds lodged in the armor, regardless of the damage, as penetrations. Does my position make sense now?

I guess I have to repeat this again. I dont care what your definition of tactically acceptable is. This is ballistic failure, not tactical failure we are discussing. Is this hard for you to comprehend? Because I have to say it every other post. If the crew is inexperienced and they bail out just from being hit, does that mean the gun is effective? Lol.

You have provided no proof of that, and your interpretation of the lexis is in my estimation non-nonsensical.

1. No, I just didnt care about your conclusions one way or another then. Im just pointing out now how I think it interesting that you are getting two different conclusions from the same test. 2. That was purely academic, and intended only a side question as to where you got that impression from. Obliviously we are past shatter gap here. 3. Yes, Yes the wouid. And the fact that the Army agrees with me should tell you that the typical interpretation is not in line with your own. Penetration = Round passes through plate "penetrating" hat armor. If you PARTIALLY penetrate something, you failed to finish the job, and complete perforation did not take place. That is the only sane interpretation of those words. Your version is hung up on the word "penetration" and your assigning simply whatever you want to the partial part. 4. Bounce there was used not in a physical sense. I TOTALLY agree that Partial penetrations to not literally bounce. I should have used the word "defeated" there. I only intended to imply failure of the round in a ballistic sense.

There isn't any refuting this. What I posted above was the offical standards of penetrations as defined by those nations when they did their tests. Guns vs Armor is a very respected site, and the info there comes in large part from primary source documentation, and partially from very reliable secondary sources. 1. Source: Robert Livingston. Robert derived his information from a paper available on microfilm at the Patton Museum (curator Charles Lemons). This criteria is known as the ‘Navy Limit’ but it applies to the testing of weapons of any service arm. There are other criteria, used for purposes other than the testing of gun penetration, known as the ‘Army Limit’ and the ‘Protection Ballistic Limit’. [up]

There is nothing wrong with guns vs armor.com its comes straight from documents. Wa Pruef is estimations.

I guess I once again have to repeat myself. Vanirs Tests, in my POV, do not disprove my claim that most rounds bounce off......since, if you are reading this thread, you would realize that I do not agree that a Partial penetration should be counted. As to his other points, I have already stated that something other than Shatter is probably responsible, at least in part, since the Pz4 failures are rather weird. Your statement for US Army penetrations is just plain false. US criteria"--------- "A significant portion of the projectile must pass as a free missile through the plate" British from 42-45: "Projectile completely through" German: "Projectile completely through" Source: http://amizaur.prv.pl/www.wargamer.org/GvA/index.html So in short (as I already stated like 3 times now?): Perhaps shatter is not the primary culprit, but the guns are still failing when they should not. And I'll this last bit one more time: Its downright ridiculous to count a partial penetration as a success, since it DID NOT pass through the plate. There is not logical reason to presume that a PARTIAL penetration of something has made it through the plate. Hence the word partial. Lumping them both together completely defeats the purpose of having two different effects. A PP and a P are NOT measures of damage, the ARE measures of the success or failure of the shell of defeating the armor. If you guys want to mince words like this you are going to erase any possibility of a rational discussion because you are obfuscating the entire issue by twisting the semantics in a preposterous manner than beyond any common sense analysis of what these things mean. This discussion is about the BALLISTIC performance of these guns, not what criteria your or anyone else finds acceptable performance wise on the battlefield. Why do I have to keep spelling this out? Ive said this about a billion times already, and I keep getting people whose responses are not disagreements of fact or method, BUT people who are making claims about things I said or didnt say that are ALREADY stamped in stone in this forum. I am getting tired of repeating myself, primarily because its downright frustrating to have to keep countering things that are downright contrary to what I did or did not say, with the insinuation that I am some kind of idiot for having not said or not said them (when in fact they are right there for you to see) DO I have to start quoting my own posts from now on? I can handle a difference of opinion all day long, but this stuff where I have to defend the same positions on things the conversation already moved past is getting old. You want to challenge my thought process? FINE, that's perfectly ok. But in the name of sanity please read the thread before you come at me with things Ive already answered, unless your post is a counter argument predicated on actual continued disagreement and not simply ignoring what I said 50 times already.

I dont know why you think Im throwing out CMBN pen mechanics. They are based in large part on Rexford and Livingstons WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, a book that I consider to be the gospel word when it comes to this stuff. For that matter, I consider combat mission to be a near flawless ww2 sim. Charles did a fantastic job, as did everyone else who worked on this game. I know for a fact I stated at least once in this thread that the only thing I have a beef with is this issue, so I do not think that can be reasonably characterized as "questioning the entire model" As for having a dim view of his work, I have my own copy and have read almost all of it. I have referenced it repeatedly in this thread. I have an issue with one tanks armor vs one or two different guns that are ballistic ally very similar. I have no problem with these guns or this tank in any other context, nor did I ever say that I did. TBH, I dont really understand how you thought that I did, but its whatever. As for my credentials, I dont have any, but neither do any of the people I'm arguing with so far as I can tell. Hence my giving flying hetzer what they think. Not to say I just dismiss everything they say out of hand, but I dont give a crap how many posts someone has. Quite frankly, I think Im being judged quite a bit by the fact that I am outside certain peoples "list of known forum grognards" PS: I DO work for the DOD. Just not in a manner relevant to this

My patience only goes so far. Its like the 3rd or 4th time I've had to say that.

Followed shortly thereafter, it would be discovered by allied intelligence that Said Panther was the only operational Panther in the entire company(the rest being under repair for broken final drives), and American armor would surge over Nazi positions and capture the remaining Panthers and use them for the Isigny tests.

If you want a conversation on whether or not a gun that PP's all the time is effective, start your own thread. This one isnt about that. For the Billionth time.

Nobody said that. Ever.

But I digress, this is going nowhere so: Admittedly, I had simply presumed BFC's implementation of what I presumed to be SG was modeled directly from WW2BnG. But, after looking at that book more, Rexford doesn't seem to actually say anything whatsoever about how often the rounds should fail, only that there might be a range between which they might. Given your testing Vanir, I wont say there isn't any Gap, but given the Pz4 results, something else is at work here (something I stated many posts ago). So then, why are the Pz4 and Sherman failing against the Tiger front? T-34-85 does it too. All 3 guns should pen (more frequently) so far as I see.

To your first quote: I already stated several posts ago that given how both guns performed in your tests there might be something else going on. Although I was already aware of the Pz4 gun being use as a control from your extremely similar tests in the thread "M10s kill Tiger 1 from 800m" which I had read before this thread. I didnt give that much thought I the time though since your conclusion then was that there was in fact some shatter gap, since your results in that thread led you to from thinking it wasnt in game at the beginning, to thinking it was to some degree in the end, and as I recall it was specifically due to the Pz4 gun. Specifically this is the bit I read, "Conclusions 1) My initial statement that there is no shatter gap in CMx2 appears to have been incorrect. Probably. This conclusion rests on the validity of using the Panzer IV as a close approximation of the US 76mm. I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be but I may have overlooked something. The shatter gap in the game is much more subdued than Rexford's book suggests. I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, although the almost complete lack of shatter gap against the Panther mantet at 500 meters is a little troubling given real world US test results that showed no penetrations of the mantlet at that range. 2) Hits on the Panther mantlet never produce spalling. Odd. 3) Although I was not testing for it specifically I couldn't help but notice that there was not one single ricochet off of the Panther shot trap down onto the hull. Not one. This was in 544 recorded hits. If you include "weapon" hits that I didn't record the total sample size was well over 600. This is an issue that has been around since the game came out and was supposedly fixed in the 1.11 patch: Panther "shot trap" on the lower turret mantlet (potentially) deflects shots downward into the hull as expected. Apparently not. " Also can you point out where Rexford gives some kind of definitive percentage of what hits should shatter? As far as I can tell, he only gets a range where it could MAY shatter, since he uses the words "suggests" and "may" in reference too it, and I dont see a single place in his book that says anything remotely like "X percent of rounds falling into this GAP will shatter and fail" In fact, he stated elsewhere on this forums if Im not mistaken that the problem was specifically with rounds made from Chevrolet, only 1 three manufacturers, which would imply that it would be a problem less often than not. As to your second part, there are two possibilities but I disagree with the conclusion you come to: PTP = P (that I agree.) BUT CP and PP in CM either both fall under PP, or CP alone falls under P. PP is not spalling. Spalling is not a form of strike. It is a after effect that ALL forms of strike might cause, but it gets noted in CM have deflections (ie: hits) because it is a way of noting something bad happened when there was otherwise no breach. You can have spalling IRL after a hit, or a PP, the degree to which it happens after a PP will potentially be more severe. Also note that in CMx2, spalling occurs mainly after ricocheting strikes. (ie: not lodged in the armor, creating massive internal bulges, and therefore not consistent with the army def of PP) We have 3 types of STRIKE in CM. They describe the what happened to the projectile: NOT THE DAMAGE. Note that different forms of damage can be caused, but only in the case of a HIT, does it have its own damage message. Most likely since most people would be wondering why the damage might have occurs to a crew member when the game just told them the round bounced. In the other two cases, its not necessary to spell that out, since potential damage is obvious, and more variable in nature. HIT---Rounds that bounce off entirely. (MAY result in spalling of a very mild nature) PARTIAL PENETRATION---rounds that make it part of the way through the armor. (May cause massive spalling, or (if we include the army CP) bits of shell fragment. Hence why this can kill tanks) PENETRATION---Projectile passed completely through the armor. (Could kill tank, note the game doesnt find it necessary to tell you that you got a "gear box hit", in the case of P and PP, it assumes you know damage occured) Seems to me like Battlefront used different words to mean different things. Nobody is going to logically call somewhat less energetic PTP's Partial Penetrations. For one, it would be a totally unnecessary distinction, since damage done, or not done is already a metric for that. And it would be linguistically retarded.

In the Link I already posted on that very same page, that army defines what you are refering to as a "complete" penetration, where light is visible but they projectile did not pass through. A Partial Pen is defined as where no light is visible, just a bulge. So far is the definition of penetration for test purposes, all nations (USA included) required that all or most of the projectile completely pass through the plate to be considered a success for making AP tables.

Your taking my "Huh" far too personally dude. Thanks for doing the tests, but from my perspective they didnt tell me anything we didnt already know, so I didnt really understand why you were using data very similar to my own to make an entirely opposite conclusion. Thats what the Huh was for. I appreciate you taking the time to test for yourself, my "huh" derives from your use of the data, not the gathering of it. As for partial penetrations, I just cant see how you can see them that way. It doesnt make sense. I mean, aside from the definitions given by the US and others, its not logically sound IMO. The "energy" of the round being the function of PP is not reasonable, since that would already fall into the damage modeling of full pens. Even shells that made it all the way through would do so at differing velocities, affecting their results, and separating PP and P based on that would be highly misleading. It would be like calling a bullet that missed by 5 feet a miss, and a bullet that misses by 10 a partial-miss. I mean, the word itself is self-explanatory. a PARTIAL penetration PARTIALLY makes it way through the armor and is lodged there is some form. World war Two definitions of this term corroborate this, so why would BF just make up their own? It seems to me that you guys who think this way are more interested adjusting the semantics so that you don't have to acknowledge a potential problem (or at least something we don't understand) with the game. There simply isnt any other reason to presume PP's are complete penetrations IMO unless your trying to make things fit in a certain manner. It just doesn't make any sense. You start twisting the words that much and pretty soon it will be impossible to make any sort of definitive statement about anything. And as for them destroying tanks: The do NOT most of the time, just judging my experience and Rinaldis 30% figure from earlier, 70% of them don't do enough to kill the tank. There is a perfectly good reason to have separate PP, P, and Spalling decals. They are not the same things. A hit that strike the armor and carries on it merry way can still cause the armor to spall. Spalling is an effect, not a type of strike. A Partial Pen is a type of strike, specially one where the round is lodge in the armor. You MIGHT get a very massive "spalling" effect from that, since a round that is poking it head through the armor, or has almost made it way through is likely to send a hell of alot of materiel into the tank. In fact, Im prerry sure you can get PP's spalling at the same time, if not in CMx2 CMx1.

Here is said document, it contains both the PP definition, and 76mm gun performance. http://wargaming.info/1998/us-army-1944-firing-test-no1/#.VbFg1vlViQk

Cook with salt? I think you are reading far too much into my statements. Exasperated? Yes. How many times do I have to spell out that this isn't about the general effectiveness of the gun? It never was. Its also obvious from your last post that you get what I mean too, but keep pushing this idea that the general effectiveness is what matters. To put it simply, the purpose of this thread when I made it was to go over the BALLISTIC realism, not the general combat capability of the two tanks. If you dont care, so long as you can still effectively kill tigers, that obviously your prerogative. But to me it continuously pushing that agenda is a derailment of the thread purpose. Not to mention that if more rounds cleanly penetrated we'd have an entirely different ballgame going on regarding how good the 76mm is vs the Tiger. Instead of 30% kills, you might see over 50%. There is no salt. And there is no snark. I just don't see why I should have to regurgitate the same thing 3-4 times before people get what I'm saying. It hinders the rest of the conversation whenever someone trys to dismiss the issue by going "See? its A-Ok, I can still kill Tigers so who cares?" You dont see how I might be Slightly agitated by that? But its whatever, lets just move on with the rest of this conversation. Also you are the same Rinaldi who scrims with the 2SS right? 113th cav or somehting?

A penetration is when the MAjority of the projectile passes freely thought the plate. If the round is lodged (as above) or fails completely break the interior armor, then its a PP. rounds that Hit and deflect are deflections, or just hits. But why ask me? The Americans gave their definition of this in Firing test No1 if Im not mistaken.

Thats not a bad idea, but what has roughly 100mm of armor that isnt a Tiger, and is somewhat flat in nature?