kipanderson

Charles,hi, thanks for the info. Can not wait to have it in my hands. All the best, Kip.

Charles, Hi, in your article, Postgame Wrapup, you mention a "research paper written by British scientists" on the subject of armour penetration in WW2. Its enough to make my eyes water! Any chance of giving me the full title of the report then I too can get it off the NTIS. I tried to find it on their website but failed. I use formula I found in a text book written by the staff at the Royal Military College of Science, the modern counterparts to the guys that wrote your report. Anyway if you could help me I would be very grateful. When the demo first came out I posted saying I thought the "hype was justified", this view has been reinforced now I have the final version. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I also grew up on SL/ASL and in my view CM is very similar. However also very much better. If you liked SL/ASL all those years ago you will love CM. If it ever crossed your mind that it would be nice to have a computer version of SL/ASL then CM is it. But as a say many times better. All the best, Kip.

Hi, like someone else on this thread it was so long ago, two years, I cannot remember. I remember there were 200 posts on this forum and then I watched the number slowly increase until it suddenly exploded. I think it may have been at the wargamer.com. All the best, Kip.

Hi, the best book on tactics in WW2 in NW Europe is Closing with the Enemy by Michael Doubler, its perfectly readable too. I would agree that Company Commander is a fine personal account of infantry warfare. For tank warfare my number one book is Tank! by Ken Tout, a moving personal account of war from inside a tank. Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk should have both. For books on the Eastern Front pop over to the "Stalingrad, a Fantastic Read" thread. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Guy Sajer's book The Forgotten Soldier is not out of print in the UK. I have seen it in all the book shops in the last two months. Saw it in a book shop two hours ago. Try Amazon.co.uk they may have it. A book that many believe is as good, and I believe is "very nearly" as good is In Deadly Combat by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann. If you are in to the Eastern Front I would put both down as a "must read" for personal accounts from the German side. For histories of the war in the east I would recommend the books by David Glantz. Together with John Erickson he is the man who knows must about the subject in the English language. Glantz's best books are two recent ones he co-wrote with Jonathan House. When Titans Clashed and The Battle of Kursk. The fact that they are recent matters as the Soviet archives were only openned in the 1990s, expect in the case of John Erickson who was allowed a look in the 1970s. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I can not speak for other nations but by 1944 the Commonwealth forces had the problem of spotters and artillery delt with. More often than not they had artillery support just minutes away. Often massive quantities. As long as the spotter did not become a casualty most units, most of the time, could count on large amounts of accurate support. I think CM models is very realistically. The only thing I would add is that the Commonwealth forces never had the serious ammunition problems the Americans had, I would up the spotters ammunition when using 25prds. The Commonwealth did a better job of producing the required artillery ammunition, strange but true. All the best, Kip.

Paul, Hi, If you want a copy I will look into how much it would cost to have the thing photocopied. It would be a copy, of a copy, of an old document , but you would still be able to read it OK. It covers everything from railway guns to the Mosin Nagant rifle. Most of the data is Soviet data but there are interesting comments from British experts when reguired. When it comes to armour penetration the best way to look at it is that if Soviet guns had been firing projectiles of identical quality to the Germans the official Soviet figures would understate penetration by about 20%-25%. As the document makes clear it all comes down to your view of the quality of Soviet ammunition. As I said there are no formula or curves in there, just tables. I will find out how much it would cost to have copied. All the best, Kip. PS. If you want a copy just email me as I do not think we should take up Steve and Charles's computer space on this. [This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 08-10-2000).]

Lewis, Hi, I have edited my reply to you. The correct answer to your question is NO, it is not as you show it. Go back and take another look at my reply to your question. Sorry. All the best, Kip.

Paul, hi, The Record of Foreign Weapons and Equipment document is largely made up of the usual tables of data. Different plate thicknesses and their angle, tables of penetration at different ranges for different types of ammunition, and so on. They always state where the data comes from and often comment on it, the quote regarding the official Soviet penetration figures being "pessimistic" is a good example. They also comment on the quality of the weapons, for example the armour plate quality and sometimes give their own tables of penetration, but sadly not the formula they used. The sources of the data include the results of examination of Soviet equipment in British and American hands, German sources and Soviet sources. The document was clearly designed to be a full review of everything that was known, from any source, about Soviet ground warfare equipment. With considered comments from people like the Ordnance Board where required. But the data is all in table format. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Lewis I have edited this post. It was late at night in the UK when I first replied and my brain was not in gear. The answer is NO it is not as you show it. It is the standard energy formula, (mass times velocity^2) then modified for penetration as there is not a straight line relationship between energy delivered and penetration. So it is (mass times velocity^2)^o.6993. I hope I have used the ^ correctly, I am a novice at illustrating formula on a computer. It is not a complete penetration formula but is does allow you to compare the performance of guns from different countries knowing that you are using the same definitions of penetration, the same target type/quality and the same projectile type/quality. When comparing tank guns you want to be sure you are using the same definitions of penetration and the same quality of plate as a target. It gives a clear measure of the "power of the gun", you can then form your own view on the quality of the projectile. If you think Soviet or American projectiles were of lower quality than German projectiles you can decrease the penetration figure that resulted as you wish. All the best, Kip. PS. Remember the guns you compare must be of reasonably similar diameter. [This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 08-10-2000).]

John, hi, I am hugely pleased if I managed to explain myself. Once you have the projectile weight, its velocity and diameter you are away. However you do have to start with a German gun of similar diameter to the Soviet, American or British gun you are interested in. For the Soviet 45mm M1942 AT gun I would start with the pak 38 50mm gun, and so on. The reason is that the relationship between the diameter of the projectile and penetration is not quite a straight line. I noted that the figures you provided for the German test results using the Soviet 76 gun were higher than the official Soviet figures by about 10%. It will be interesting to see what "mark up" Charles gives over the official Soviet figures. We will just have to wait and see. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Without wishing to send everyone to sleep I will explain in a little more detail what I mean when I say that the Soviets understated their penetration figures when compared to the Germans say. If you use the Milne-de-Marre penetration equation you can work out the "energy delivered per square millimeter" by a given projectile. It is not MV squared as this would mean a straight line relationship between the energy delivered and penetration , which is not the case. It is MV squared to the power of 0.6993. The way it works is like this. You start say with the German 88mm gun and work out the energy delivered per square millimeter modified for penetration, that is to the power of 0.6993 as stated above. For the 88 you end up with a figure of 17.73 units of energy per square millimeter modified for penetration. If you then do the same for the Soviet 85mm gun you end up with a figure of 18.37 units of energy per square millimeter, modified for penetration.Note these are not raw energy figures, the "modified for penetration" bit is important. You then set 17.73 against 120, 120mm being the official German penetration figure for the Pzgr.39 88 round at 100m at 30 degrees. Once you have set 17.73 against 120 it follows that 18.37 equals 124. If you use all the German assumptions and definitions they use in their penetration figures, what ever they may be, you find that the Soviet 85mm gun would deliver a penetration figure of 124mm at 100m at 30 degrees. The important thing is that you are using the same assumptions about target type and the same definition of penetration for the Soviet figure as for the German figure. It clears the air and everything then comes down to a discussion about the quality of Soviet projectiles, not also a discussion about the quality of the target and the definition of penetration. The Milne-de-Marre equation comes from a text book called Military Ballistics written by the staff at the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham, UK. I may not know what I am talking about but they do. Interestingly the results I come up with are very similar to those the British Ordnance Board came up with back in the 40s, again like the guys at Shrivenham people who certainly knew their subject. My conclusion is the same as the Ordnance Board, Soviet official penetration figures are understated if you want to compare them with the German figures. If Soviet projectiles were the same quality as German projectiles, I am not saying they were , but if, then Soviet official figures need to be increased by a little over 20%. Coming back to the 88 V Soviet 85mm gun you can say that the Soviet "gun" was just, the more powerful gun. It all comes down to the one variable, instead of three variable, ie the quality of the projectile. All the best, Kip. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I thought Paul, and hopefully others, might find these quotes from documents I have interesting. " Report on the results of testing of the 100mm and 122mm tank guns at the Kubinka Proving Grounds, September 12, 1944. To the chairman fo the technical council of the people's commissariat for armaments of the USSR, comrade EA Satel. Report. 1. D-25 122mm tank gun manufactured at the factory #9. Its ballistic characteristics are identical to those of the following guns: A-19 122mm, D-2 122mm and S-4 giving a muzzle velocity of 780-790m/s with a 25kg projectile. This gun reliably penetrates the Panther's frontal armour at 2,500m, and this less than its maximum range." The report goes on to make clear that it is the upper hull front plate that is being talked about.( At direct LOS its thickness works out to be 140mm, 80mm at 55 degrees. However its full "vertical" equivalent against APC rounds is more like 170mm.) Quote from the report, "The Panther's frontal armour is 85mm thick and sloped at 35 degrees from the horizon. Therefore, when shooting at it from the above stated distances the angle of the projectile's trajectory at the point of impact is close to 0 degrees, and the difference between the axis of the projectile and the right angle to the armour's surface (angle of impact) is close to 55 degrees." The official Russian figure for penetration at 2,500m against vertical plate is 124mm, using the 122mm gun. This illustrates the extent to which "official" Russian penetration figures understate performance. This point is reinforced by a thousand page document that I found in the archives of the Tank Museum in Bovington.(This was a find of a lifetime and I had the entire thing photocopied.) " Record of foreign weapons and equipment. Volume 1. USSR. Part 1. Weapoms." It is a document produced by British intelligence in 1947 and covers all the weapons used by the Soviets in the ground war in WW2. Page after page of data. Anyway in the report they give the following "health warning" about official Soviet penetration figures when ever those figures are given. "It is known that the Russians calculate their penetration of armour figures by a more pessimistic formula than that used by other powers. This results in the figures being lower than expected for the ballistics of the gun and ammunition concerned." An important point as we move into CM2 mode. In the other war games I have seen the figures used are always the "official" Soviet figures, also in Jentz's and Zaloga's books, much as I am a big fan of both men. For some weapons they give a British Ordnance Board estimate. For the Soviet 85mm gun the Soviet figure against vertical plate at 1000 yards is 103mm of penetration using the APC round. The Ordnance Board figure is 128mm. When is comes to the Soviet 76.2mm gun and the Tiger I am not claiming that the BR350A APC round could penetrate the Tiger from the front at any range, it could not, but the tungsten core BR350P could. The Soviet penetration figures being 110mm at 300m and 92mm at 500m against vertical plate. These figures being followed by the usual "health warning" in the British report. The Germans themselves in the Tigerfibel im Bild, a sort of manual for Tiger crew, state the the BR350P round could penetrate the front of a Tiger at 400m. All the best, Kip.

Charles, Perfect is all I can think of saying. BTS comes to the rescue again. Careful though, I can see a long list of "special requests" coming your way. Thanks for all the effort, all the best, Kip.

Hi, very interesting to see John's German test results for the BR350A. If you apply the standard plus 20% factor for moving from penetration at 30degrees to the vertical you get a figure of 90mm penetration at 500m and 80mm at 1000m. A real problem for the Germans given the 80mm front armour of stgIIIs and MarkIVs. Once development of CM2 is well under way there are going to be some stimulating discussion. I have some interesting data on the combat effectiveness of the Soviets in the second half of the war that shows them as far better soldiers than they are normally given credit for, more of that in a few weeks. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree that there is a serious problem with the "official" penetration figures from the various countries. To overcome this problem I always start with the official German figures, for their own guns, and then use a version of the Milne-de-Marre penetration equation, part of which sets V squared to the power of 0.6993. That way all the figures that emerge are calculated on the same "basis". In this case all use the German definition of penetration and assumptions. When you calculate peneration using the German definitions and assumptions you find that the British tend to over state peneration by about 5%, the American figures are very similar to the Germans' and the Soviets understate penetration by about 23%. The British view was that "official" Soviet figures understated peneration by as much as 30%-35%. In the post above the American 76mm projectile is the APC M62. The official American figure is 88mm of peneration at 30dergees at 1000 yards. Against vertical plate at 1000m I would agree with Charles's figure of around 101mm of peneration. So for the 76mm guns I am assuming a figure of 100mm of peneration at 1000m in the above post. For the Soviet BR350P projectile the official figures given by the Soviets and used in their war time manuals is 128mm at 100m, 110mm at 300m and 92mm at 500m, all against vertical plate. All the Soviet figures are likely to be understated by about 20%. I have used vertical plate figures because it is a Tiger 1 we are talking about. All the best, Kip.

Hi, This has been an interesting debate and clearly there is a wide range of sources one can turn to. My own view is that Charles should not increase the thickness of the Tiger's mantlet. Although there are no perfect sources I believe that turning to the reports made by British and American engineers after examining the Tiger are as good as it gets. I have three such reports from British sources and one American. The British reports are dated 10/11/1942, 30/9/1943, and January 1944. The 1942 report is a field report from North Africa, the other two reports are more considered and the result of examination in the UK. The 1943 report is aimed specifically at the question of the Tiger's armour protection. Importantly all three reports conclude that the Tiger's mantlet provided 100mm of protection. The January 1944 report, this is a formal report by the Military College of Science, School of Tank Technology, Chobham, ( the place "Chobham" armour came from), states that the "armour is comparable in hardness to British machineable plate." For the purposes of this debate the 1943 report is the most interesting, dealing in detail with the very question we are discussing. It states the following, "The mantlet is cast in one piece, having a flat front plate 92mm thick extending over the full hieght and breadth of the front turret, which is shaped to allow free movement of the plate when elevating or depressing the gun. The thickness of the mantlet , measured through the gun site wholes is 150mm; in the central portion, where the front plate is reinforced around the gun, the thickness is approximately 205mm. These thicknesses of over 100mm are only local and it is thought the protection afforded by the mantlet as a whole would not be greater than that given by a plate of uniform thickness of 100mm." (Note it is likely that the figure of 92mm is a transcription error as in all other British reports, including other places in the 1943 report, the figure is given as 97mm.) Given that Charles says that one figure is needed for the whole mantlet it might at first seem reasonable to increase the "one" figure to 110mm or 120mm as some form of average. However given that what we are all after is as close a representation of tactical reality as possible there is a serious problem with this. Lets take a situation in which two American 76mm gunned vehicles are firing at a hull down Tiger at 1000m. Once they got the range they would have a very good chance of a kill, assuming 2/3 of the mantlet is 100mm thick and 1/3 200mm thick.However if you made the mantlet 110mm thick there would be a chance of six, seven or more strikes before there was a kill. If you have a situation in which there is an armour plate that is 2/3 100mm thick and 1/3 200mm taking an average does not give you a representation of reality in terms of the tactical situation. If you make the mantlet 110mm thick you halve the effective range of the American 76mm guns against it from around 1200m to around 600m. The real world figure having been 1200m given that around 2/3 of the mantlet was 100mm thick. When it comes to CM2 you have similar problems. The effective range of the Soviet 76.2mm gun, firing the tungsten core BR350P round, against the mantlet was 400m-500m. If you increase the thickness to 110mm that decreases to around 200m, not a representation of the real tactical situation as it was. The American report I referred to is the well known Handbook on German Forces from March 1945. This gives the mmantlet as 100mm.By this time many examples will have been carefully examined and 100mm was claerly the considered view for the mantlet's effectiveness. In summary there is no perfect answer to this problem but when all the factors mentioned above are considered it is my view that the mantlet should stay at 100mm. To change it would create unreal tactical situations. Sources. The British reports all come from the excellent book, Tiger! The Tiger tank: A British View. Edited by David Fletcher, Keeper of the Tank Museum, Bovington, UK. It is simply a collection of reports on the Tiger produced during the war, if you can get hold of it, as good a book as any Jentz book.

Hi, Surrey, south west of London UK. Kip.

hi, I am 43. All the best, Kip.

Hi, there is now a series of books out that are so perfect as a source of scenarios for CM that had one commissioned them for that purpose they would be no better. The books come in the Order of Battle Series published by Osprey Publishing. www.osprey-publishing.co.uk They are full of narrative accounts, unit details and maps normally scaled at about 1:50,000. If you ever wondered what the street plan of St.Vith was like, which units fought there and what happened, then these books are for you. Normally I am not that keen on Osprey books, military history at too popular a level, but this series is right up to standard. The current books cover the Ardennes offensive. For those that have not been able to visit the Ardennes a word on what it looks like. The villages tend to be at road junctions with a haphazard street plan that has grown up over the centuries, no "blocks". There are some, but not too many, hedges, walls and clumps of trees in and around the villages. Not the large number of orchards you find in Normandy. The villages are often surrounded by 300-700 meteres of open, relatively featureless pasterland. The forests are normally plantations of tall pines with some, but not much, mixed woodland.The maps in the books give a very good feel of what the Ardennes actually looks like, but of course the woods and open ground are a little more broken up than appears on a 1:50,000 map. All the best, Kip.

Hi, All or Nothing did the same to me, except with me the tiles turn purple/brown. My system is also similar. PIII 450, 128RAM, Voodoo3 3000, up to date drivers including, mouse drivers. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I have had something similar happen to me. After quite a while, and only in about one in three games, I find the odd tile goes purple/brown and looses all texture. Then the entire screen goes purple/brown and looks very like a purple negative, but with very few features or textures showing. I think, but am not sure , that it tends to happen if I scroll around the screen a lot. If I jump around the screen, that is just click on buttons rather than hold down, it tends not to happen. You can get around the screen without scrolling and it does not spoil the game. system, PIII 450, Voodoo 3000, 128 RAM. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I have found there is a problem with line of site with regard to bocage. I have found it very difficult to predict whether a unit will have a line of site through bocage. This is especially the case if the bocage is at 45 degrees, that is runs across a tile from one corner to another on the map editor. In all cases I have been careful to place the unit wuthin a few meters of the bocage and to rotate it at 90 degrees to the bocage. If either Steve or Charles is interested I have constructed a small test on the map editor that clearly illustrates the problem using preview. At least on my machine it illustrates the problem. I will e-mail the file to anyone who is interested. Great game, all the best, Kip. System, PIII 450, 128 RAM, Voodoo 3000.

Cyrano01, Hi, a classic case of "great minds think alike". All the best, Kip.