rune

It is NOT the same engine, T-72 was made by a company in Russia, the CMX2 engine is being coded by Charles. Rune

In defense of the alcohol poisoning I tried to give Seanachai , at one point he goes to the bathroom and yells for Berli and I to come over. We rush to find him pointing at a hand towel, asking what it was. I knew Minnesota was backwards, but didn't know it was THAT backwards. It was at this point that Elvis the Dog decided it was better to hide then face the two of them anymore. Also note it is not possible to give a gnome alcohol poisoning, next time I may have to try food poisoning. Rune

Nope. That is the Panther II at Fort Knox and the Patton Museum. It is an Auf G turret, as no turret was ever produced and only one body was produced. From Actung Panzer Web Site: In the early 1944, MAN (Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nuremberg) was allowed to produce two prototypes but was only able to produce one in early 1945, without newly designed Schmalturm turret. On May 4th of 1944, it was realized that German industry was unable to start Panther II's production and this project was abandomed in favour of further development of Panther Ausf G/F based on lessons learned from Panther II. On June 3rd of 1944, all companies which were to produce Panther II, were ordered to start the production Panther. Since turret's design was never completed, for test purposes prototype Panther II was fitted with newly built Ausf G turret (built in March/April of 1945) armed with 75mm KwK 42 L/70 gun and with special mountings for infrared device and telescopic range finder. It is possible that it was used in combat but there is no records of it, while some sources state that Ausf G turret was fitted by the Americans after the chassis was captured. I believe ti says almost the same thing in the plaque in front of the Panther II at the museum. I may have a photo of it someplace at home. Rune

From http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-02.htm The armor of the Tiger I was not well sloped, but it was thick. Here is where many fail to understand that, in terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness is a quality in itself, since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d). The T/d relationship regarding armor penetration demonstrates that the more the thickness of the armor plate overmatches the diameter of any incoming armor piercing round, the harder it is for the projectile to achieve a penetration. On the other side, the greater the diameter of the incoming projectile relatively to the thickness of the armor plate which it strikes, the greater the probability of penetration. This explains why the side armor of the Tiger I, being 80 mm thick, was so difficult to be penetrated at combat ranges by most Allied anti-tank and tank guns, whose calibers were overmatched by the thickness of the Tiger I armor. The quality of the armor was another major asset of the Tiger I, and it can't be emphasized enough that the Tiger I was a very special kind of Panzer, since it had the best quality of everything, compared to any other German tank. The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of 255-260 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured that it stayed that way. The Tiger I's armor was much superior to that of, for example the Panther, which armor had a much higher Brinell index, and consequently, was very brittle. The Tiger, as a side effect from the usage of this special armor, also was a very expensive tank. The nominal cost of a Tiger was 250,000 Reichsmarks. In contrast, a PzKpfw III cost RM 96,200, a PzKpfw IV RM 103,500, and a PzKpfw V Panther RM 117,000; all these figures are exclusive of weapons and radios. Another fact that helped the Tigers a lot was the "shatter gap" effect which affectted allied ammunition, a most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. It should be noted that the problems with the 76 mm and 3" guns did not necessarily involve the weapons themselves: the noses of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail. Penetrations would occur below this velocity range, since the shell would not shatter, and strikes above this range would propel the shell through the armor whether it shattered or not. When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect. As a general rule, BHN (Brinell Hardness Index) effects, shot shatter, and obliquity effects are related to the ratio between shot diameter and plate thickness. The relationship is complex, but a larger projectile hitting relatively thinner plate will usually have the advantage. There is an optimum BHN level for every shot vs plate confrontation, usually in the 260-300 BHN range for World War Two situations. Below that, the armor is too soft and resists poorly, above that, the armor is too hard and therefore too brittle. The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the armor protection of the Tiger: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from 500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.). All this considered, and analyzing the tables above, it stands clear that, "based on opposing ranges, without considering other factors, the Tiger I had only been outclassed by the Russian Josef Stalin heavy tank with the 122 mm gun" (Again, JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.). The rule of thumb was that it took at least five American M4 Sherman medium tanks to knock out a cornered Tiger. When speaking of opposing ranges, it becomes necessary to take a look at another essential Tiger I feature: the KwK 36 L/56 8.8 cm gun. Rune

As for the t34 ammo getting worse. Scenario design, parameters June of each year, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945. Each year I picked a T34 except the model 40, which has a different gun. The penetration values for the round are the same across all years models. Same velocity, same shell, same values. Anyone itnerested can do their own test or I can forward the screnario to be opened int he editor to look for yourself. E-mail me if you are interested. Rune

I AM with the design team, and that we why we will NOY make a change without definite proof. For each person that says a tank is under-modeled, there will be another saying it is over-modeled. As for the StuGs, found this when I took my son to get a book at Barnes: From Panzer Operatiosns, The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus, 1941-1945 Pages 231-235 "The T-34s now constituted the backbone of the defense, just as they provided the momentum in the morning. Every weapon we could bring to bear was firing from all sides, but this had little effect unless an armor-piercing round chanced to scote a direct hit and set one ablaze. Our assault guns represented the most dangerous threat to the T-34s, had a difficult mission to fulfill, as the enemy tanks--numerically superior--stubbornly held their ground and forced our StG III to approach at POINT-BLANKrange. Many of our assault guns suffered direct hits on their reinforced frontal armor before they could manage to incapacitate a single T34. One the top plate of the frontal armor on any given StG III was smashed, this vehicle had to be relegated to a secondary place in the rear of those of its fellows whose front armor remained intact. Despite these difficulties, the assault guns gradually made headway; after an hour five T-34s were burning whereas only a few of our StG IIIs had sustained light damage, and all remained in operation... The story goes on, but there you have it, point blank fire from T34s did not destroy a single StuG. Only after the TOP armor was damage did they get roated to the second echelon. Since I believe the author, why would I then dismiss him out of hand? As for the %, it DOES make a great difference. Too much, and the Tiger is too vulerable, too little, and it isn't vulernable either. Do we just ignore test firings, based on nothing but general comments without supporting evidence? I think not. I DO agree that the Tiger should suffer at point blank range and suffer under 200 meters. I WISH we had the ability of aimed shots in the first CM series, it would also change the outcome WITHOUZT changing the penetration values. As for the 76mm, I am not sitting at home, ready tot est things at a whim. Besides working my full time job, refereeing soccer [almost playoff time] amd helping with CMX2, Down in Flames, and other projects, time is scarce. As for catching it in play testing, why would you think it would be caught? The game has been out 4 years, and only in the last year some doubt was raised. However, others point out the 50+30 is more then 80, and the above quote from a German General support that position. We throw out that arguement based on what? Last, I find it insulting your comment about " but if you keep to that attitude and you talk the design team to your way of thinking CMX, may well repeat wholly preventable glitches like the great "Underpowered Soviet AT weapons debate". Asking for PROOF on a statement will not ruin anything, it will make the game more accurate. I am done with this thread. Rune

Wouldn't you know it, as soon as I post htis, found a site that has the photo and other interesting articles from WWII. A must read, but doesn't really help either way. http://www.lonesentry.com/ Scroll down to the Intelligence Bulletin Articles section. Rune

last post on this, as again you are assuming too much. What I am saying is the 15% figure you quote is based on a feeling, while actual gun firing reports vary. I also believe the Tiger was killed at 250 meters, the Russian training agrees with this, but I do NOT aceept the 500 meters without some sort of proof. lack of writing on a tank shrugging off a hit doesn't surprise me, there was nothing note worthy about it. The problem with some of these reports is they are too vague. At what range was the StuG killed at? Just as I don't expect the Tiger killing 22 out of 50 tanks means anything without knowing the details. As for the data, Lorrin knows his stuff, and others who opinions I value disagree. these are people who live for this, if they cannot agree, I am not certainly going to know for sure one way or another. I also agree the round 350B should be better. the point I am making, is 60 years after the fact, we still cannot find good documentation. You assume I reject them outright. Again, I do not. However, being the skeptic that I am, i just do NOT rule out ACTUAL test firings. To me, that is rejecting evidence that points against your thesis. Give me a reason to doubt the test firings, to reject their data. Lack of writing is NOT proof. Storys of how the 76.2 killed a Tiger is useless without knowing all the details. Valaera has a excellent account of taking out a Ferdinand from a veteran, where valera himself says it had to be a StuG. Give me proof, other then a few stories. I don't argue the 76mm was good against the Panzer II, IIIs and IVs, no doubt. I just find the 15% figure doubtful. Also they said the gun was great until the Tiger. OK, then what about after the Tiger? This article from tactical and technical trends, December, 1943 is interesting: An article recently published in the Soviet Artillery Journal gave detailed instructions for the use of antitank weapons against the German Tiger tank. Vulnerability of various parts of the tank was cited in connection with directions for attack. The accompanying sketch shows vulnerable points and indicates weapons to be used against them. Material concerning the vulnerability of German tanks was published in Tactical and Technical Trends No. 8, p. 46 and No. 11, p. 28. Detailed information about the Tiger tank was published in Tactical and Technical Trends No. 34, p. 13. A translation of the Soviet Artillery Journal article follows: "The mobility of tanks depends upon the proper functioning of the suspension parts -- sprocket (small driving wheel), idler (small wheel in the rear), wheels and tracks. All of these parts are vulnerable to shells of all calibers. A particularly vulnerable part is the sprocket. "Fire armor-piercing shells and HE shells at the sprocket, the idler and the tracks. This will stop the tank. Fire at the wheels with HE shells. Also, when attacking a tank, use AT grenades and mines. If movable mines are used, attach three or four of them to a board and draw the board, by means of a cord or cable, into the path of an advancing tank. [German Tiger Panzer VI -- Vulnerability of Tiger Tanks] "There are two armor plates on each side of the tank. The lower plate is partly covered by the wheels. This plate protects the engine and the gasoline tanks which are located in the rear of the hull, directly beyond and over the two rear wheels. "Fire at the lower plates with armor-piercing shells from 76-, 57- and 45-mm guns. When the gasoline tanks are hit, the vehicle will be set on fire. Another method of starting a fire within the tank is to pierce the upper plates on the sides of the tank, thus reaching the ammunition compartments and causing an explosion. "The rear armor plate protects the engine as well as giving additional protection to the gasoline tanks. Shells from AT guns, penetrating this armor, will disable the tank. "The turret has two vision ports and two openings through which the tank’s crew fire their weapons. The commander’s small turret has five observation slits. There are two sighting devices on the roof of the front of the tank, one for the driver, the other for the gunner. Also, in the front of the tank there is a port with a sliding cover. "The turret is a particularly important and vulnerable target. Attack it with HE and armor-piercing shells of all calibers. When it is damaged, use AT grenades and incendiary bottles (Molotov cocktails). "There is a 10-mm slit all around the base of the turret. AT gun and heavy machine-gun fire, effectively directed at this slit, will prevent the turret from revolving and thus seriously impair the tank's field of fire. Furthermore, hits by HE shell at the base of the turret may wreck the roof of the hull and put the tank out of action. "The tank’s air vents and ventilators are under the perforations in the roof of the hull, directly behind the turret. Another air vent is in the front part of the roof, between the two observation ports used by the radio operator and the driver. Use AT grenades and incendiary bottles against these vents. "Explode antitank mines under the tank to smash the floor and put the tank out of action." Accompanying sketch shows vulnerable points and indicates weapons to be used against them. I cannot post the picture, but the article specifically shows that the 76mm guns are to aim for the LOWER hull, where the armour is 60mm. This is at 500 meters or less, they are told NOT to fire at about 500 meters. So, basically, I do believe the 76mm can kill a Tiger, but not at 500 meters unless a lucky shot. I do NOT discount test firings, I do not think 15% means ANYTHING, as you stated it could be 10%. heck with the ammo it could be 5% we just do not know. We do NOT know what the effect of the bad ammo was. As I said, someone has something in writing, with details, and I can accept it, but in the meantime, the jury is still out. As I said, last post on this, not because of opinions, I respect bigduke's thoughts, but we won't get anywhere without more information. besides, it is NOT like the game is going to get another patch. CMX2 moves forward, and I have more then enough work to do on it. However, if I find anything else either way, will post it when I get a chance. Rune

flamingknives, I thought about that, but it doesn't explain the bigger drop off for the f34. Rune

Bigduke, fair enough. proof would be: 1. ANY written proof that the Russians lied about their own test firings in order to get the 85mm gun faster. 2. ANY written proof about the armour brinell values on the test plate used. 3. ANY proof that the American and British tests were flawed or lied about. 4. Why do I not accept a lack of written proof as evidence? Tiger I production was about 1355 tanks, at the high point, there were 671 in service. Subtract the ones on the West Front and Italy, and it would be a very rare encounter with a Tiger. lack of anything written doesn't mean a thing. 5. Why wowuld I argue about the StuG? Lorrin states 50 + 30 mm is more then 80mm due to the type of armour, and I have seen others state that it should be less. Unless you happen to have a StuG on you, who do you believe? I cannot prove either way. If you can, tell me how, am open to more research on this. 6. I also asked if you used the same model tank across the years, you didn't answer. The T34 used two types of guns. I said I will check that to see if you are correct. Nothing mysterious here. 7. That better round you talk about? Lets see: "the BR-354B projectile replaced the BR-350B projectile in 1944." followed by ""In addition, Soviet quality control was generally poor and ammunition was substandard up until about 1944, which would degrade penetration in unpredictable ways. I would expect that this means that some ammunition would perform better than predicted and some worse, or even considerably worse." It further says that there are no reliable source for penetration data for the BR-350B and the data that exist show that it would have lower penetration and less HE filler than the BR-350A. BUT: "It is likely that the reason for lack of BR-350B projectile data is that no actual tests were carried out and that the limited data presented is theoretical, leading to estimates of penetration performance which are unrealistically low." And that overall the performance of the BR-350B was better than the BR-350A." OK, so they say the ammo could be worse or could be better, gee that helped to figure this out. 8. For the 85mm gun, how could it be wrong in the formula? Wrong velocity, wrong weight, wrong material of the shell, etc etc. I am NOT going to ask Charles to quit working on CMX2 to take a look, not that he would listen to me anyway. I also read German Tiger accounts, none of which mentioned getting knocked out by a 76mm gun. Did it happen? Of course I believe it did, but a lack of writing proves nothing. People complain the cruiser tanks in CMAk should not burn easily, that there is no reason. Look at my sig for an answer, plus combat reports that 20 out of 22 cruiser tanks burned in an attack. If I was to believe this account: "On July 7th of 1943, single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharfuehrer Franz Staudegger from 2nd Platoon of 13th Panzer Company of 1st SS Panzer Grenadier Division "LSSAH" engaged Soviet group of some 50 T-34 tanks around Psyolknee (southern sector of the Kursk salient). Staudegger used up his entire ammunition after destroying some 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For his achievement, Franz Staudegger was awarded the Knight's Cross." I would think the Tiger could not be killed, of course I know better. I read accounts from both sides, read test firing reports, read everything I can find. The bottom line is I have NO definite proof that 15% undervalued is close. We have no idea on what the ammo problems effects were. We have no idea of the test plate, we have no idea on too much to base an opinion one way or another. Any proof and I can change my mind easily. I am not going to base it on a feeling. Besides, it isn't like CMBB is going to change. I have enought research to do on CMX2. Rune

I was thinking more along the line of Peng Plague... but it may conflict with one of the four horsemen. Rune

I do have a question for someone more knowledgable. According to this site: http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/soviet_guns5.html The Zis-3 gun, firing the exact smae shell as the F34 gun, but with a longer barrel and HIGHER velocity then the tank gun, has less penetration at 100 meters? I don't understnad that at all. Also the drop off of penetration value does not make sense to me either. Why the 19mm drop off in the first 400 meters, and only 9 in the next 500? Am serious, this does NOT make sense to me. Rune

Bigduke, You wrongly assume a lot. Do I know Valera? yep, who do you think got him into the beta testing? As for your assumption on the armour, Valera will also admit there is NO documentation on the hardness. Saying it was better then German plate has no more weight then saying it doesn't. Another false assumption, CMBB does NOT use tables. Nope, never has. A formula is used for penetration figuring all sorts of factors, type of armour, type of shell, velocity, etc etc. They thought their cast armour was as good as? Compared to what, a panzer II or III? The Americans said their Shermans could stand up to anything the Germans threw at it. This is useless information, not based on anything. As for being closed minded, not at all. For the StuG 80mm, there is a difference of opinion by those much more knowledgable then me. Either it does more then 80mm of protection, or it doesn't. Unless someone has a StuG we can fire at, we may never know. As for the round, I will compare the t34 across years with the same model tank. 1941 could be the model 40 which had a different gun, so will look at it when I get a chance. however, before I change my mind, I want more then the Russians lied on a firing test, or ignore data from other sources that disagree with the Russians. I do NOT believe the British or Americans would lie about a penetration value. Bottom line, show me concrete proof, and I will change my mind, it the meantime, I will not say the model is wrong by 15% without some sort of proof, especially when people like John Waters and Lorrin, both of which are much more knowledgable then I, state otherwise. Show me proof and not conjecture, and I will back you (like that really matters ) Rune [ April 26, 2005, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

So your opinion is based on the Russian battlefield web site. Did you know they were invovled in the making of the game? Did you also notice they have listed in their tables that the performance was less in the 1941-1943 time frame due to problems with the ammunition? Did you also know a lot of their figures were based on formula and NOT on firing tests? Here is exactly what Valera says: Also, it is important to understand that realistic penetration values in 1941-1943 was reduced significantly due to low quality ammo. YOUR primary source states this. Also interesting to note that the SU76 crews were taught NOT to fire at a Tiger unless under 300 meters, and to aim for the tracks. To me the subject is far from settled. I'll still stick with live test firings untill someone comes up with something better. Rune

Jason, You said they lied to get the 85mm gun, I want to see any proof of this. I will go with test fires unless you have any proof that the numbers were fudged. Rune

Bigduke, then read this, originally posted by Rexford in another thread: Here is a post I just added to the Matrix Games web site: Vasiliy Fofanov posted results of a September 1943 firing test by Russians against the 82mm side armor on a Tiger tank: 76.2mm guns fail at 100m and 500m with 0 and 30 degree side angles And at 100m and 500m to 600m: U.S. 57mm anti-tank gun fails U.S. 75mm fails Russian 85mm fails German 75mm Pak 40 fails It is further noted in a post by karl smasher that 75mm Pak 40 routinely defeated 80mm to 85mm of Russian plate during virtual test bench trials at a simulated range of 600m: "Saenko, Melnikov, Satel Verified: Ustinov, Voronov September 11, 1943" PAK 40: "In spite of the fact, that this captured artillery system reliably penetrates the armor plates of 80mm and 85mm thickness from the testbench at the virtual distance of 600m, during the firing at "Tiger" tank by two pieces with 30 AP rounds each from a distance of 600-500m no full penetrations of side armor were obtained." The above suggests to me that the armor was attacked at an angle. The 75mm Pak 40 APCBC would defeat 130mm on half the hits at 600m, so 85mm plates would only be a challenging target at an angle. If Russians used face-hardened, high hardness or flawed armor, the impact angle of 75mm Pak 40 against 85mm plate would be about 44 degrees. Now, if Tiger 82mm resisted like 92mm due to above average resistance (in tests against U.S. 90mm APCBC, Tiger 82mm resisted like 89mm effective), and it was more resistance than Russian test plate, hits at 44 degrees would routinely fail. So Tiger defeat of all rounds might be due to combination of above-average resistance of 82mm plates and lowered resistance of Russian test plates that were used to set test angles for other than 76.2mm ammo. Analysis of Allied firing tests against five captured early production Tigers indicates that Tiger 82mm plates averaged 3.3% more resistance than good quality American plate, with a maximum advantage of 9% over U.S. armor. The following was posted by karl smasher on the Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin site, and in this case shatter appears to be the culprit: " In reply to the the 85mm results, do you have the German report of firing trials using a captured T34/85 tested April-1944(wolfgang Fleischer book "WEAPONS TESTING") at Kummersdorf. The T34/85 failed against front hull and turret at 500m0degrees. Penetrations by 85mm were obtained against the side armor of the Tiger at 500m@0degrees by 85mm BR-365K. Note BR-365 (flat nose) failed at all ranges, rounds rounds broke up. It mentions BR-365K was more effective against the vertical tiger armor than the other flat 85mm nose rounds. Again these rounds tested were all captured from the inside the tank." this was posted on the Matrix forum and the Yahoo! Tankers site. John Waters, and rexford both also say this: "Lorrin in the first live fire tests against the Tiger E armor conducted by NIIBT at Kubinka April 25 - 30th 1943. The 76.2mm F-34 reportedly failed to penetrate the Tiger E side hull and turret armor "even 200 at meters". During the second live fire tests conducted in September 1943 the 76.2mm F-22 USV, F-34, and Zis-3 reportedly failed to penetrate the Tiger E side hull and turret armor at 500 meters & 100 meters. These are 2 live fire tests with basicly the same results. To bad we dont have access to the complete text of both reports etc. & it was a US 57mm IIRC. Regards, John Waters" Rune [ April 25, 2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

Like that hasn't been done before... Rune

Actually it DOES have 2 MB Level 2 cache, the 630 thru 650 Pentium 4 chips all have that. Rune

****News Flash**** Much to berli's dismay, white smoke has been spotted and the bells of St. Peter's are ringing. Rumours are once the college of the cardinals heard Seanachai wanted to be Pope, they rushed in and in only a day and a half elected anyone but Seanachai. It is also rumoured that dalem was completed ignored, as his wantom act of killing ewoks has ruled him out. More as it is known.... Rune

Dear Elvis aka Wanker, Your namesake played here Sunday. he performed 36 songs in 2 hours and no encore, but was one hell of a show. The reviews have also been great. Just letting you know he is carrying on... Rune

A possibility. Rune

It was Berli, he gave me an extra Monday this week. *Sigh* Q4 of 2005. Hmm I actually may have typed that right this time. Q4 of 2005. See, I knew I could.... Rune

Eeks, you are of course correct, the official date is Q6 of 2005. Aplogies for the typo. Rune

As been said in the past, Q4 of 2006. Beta testing is by invite only, as is the scenario designers. Rune

Abuse from Emrys? Isn't he the same fellow that thinks playing the AI is difficult enough, and will not play a human being? [Which doesn't rule you out, Seanachai]. I am tempted to send him my latest evilness just to drive him to drink, which wouldn't take much. Rune