danielh

Tom, Actually i did two things primarily: 1. Analyze the possible factors which define acuraccy and hit capability on the test range and in the battlefield. Conclusion: The main difference between testrange and battlefield: - Human factor - Environment And that there were clearly situations on the battlefield which were very near the testrange situation (Example of 2 tanks against each other on open ground). 2. To give an answer why in general the probability system doesn't work satisfactory for tanks (Aggregates of objects or instances can be described well with probability models. Single objects and single instances not). Greets Daniel

Attempt to analyse the factors, which can influence hit capability on the battlefield against the ones at a testrange. Testrange/stationary target and firer (for a typical tankcalibre gun, let's say 75 mm at around 800 m/s mv): Steps in shooting 1. Range guessing/measuring 2. Operate the azimuth of the gun to come in conjunction with rangeguess number. 3. Aim 4. Fire Weigh the possible error at each stage: 1. (Rangeguessing) Under ideal conditions (Clear, bright Weather) error for a trained gunner will be almost zero at ranges of 0 - 600 m 2. (Azimuth) Depends on the used system but can be expected to be almost automatic -> error almost zero 3. (Aim) With zooms of up to 8 x ranges up to 1000 m won't bring some problems 4. (Fire) Deviation of the gun/shell/shot won't bring a significant error up to 1000 m (Supposed the barrel was properly adjusted to the aiming mechanic). Gunpowder differences would change the trajectory beyond 1500 m significantly (Trajectory impacts is greater at range). Since we don't have the exact amount of gunpowder differences we should leave that variable out, because it becomes significant only at great ranges. (At what ranges were fieldhowitzers, shipguns used, right at very long ranges of several kilometers, so powder deviation shouldn't be much of an impact either). But of course there are deviations in the system imposed by the myriad of variables which some are: Turbulent air as most significant factor, but surely reflected in the testrange figures. Mechanical deviations, imposed by temperature, azimuth mechanics tolerances, possible little movements of the barrels imposed by vibrations. All this errors are reflected in a testrange site. Ballistic behaviour of the shot like tumbling (Very bad for a tankgun...), i'm not a specialist in that so i can't quantify that... Now let's come to the battlefield, where -absolutely correct- much more variables can interfere and lead to significant errors. Most important one, as we all agree will be the human factor, which becomes more important. 1. A target must first be spotted 2. identified 3. Ammunition type must be chosen 4. Range guessing may be heavily influenced by weather, partial covering, moving Hardware wise 1., 2.,4. are influenced by the viewing and aiming system of the tank. Absolute values will be very hard to gather, one can only analyze the individual tank and do some assumptions, like a narrow slit in the armor may be worse than a turnable periscope, binoculars may be superior to monoculars because of the added depth information (Hunting animals use the same trick...). Magnification may be an advantage in certain situation, but also a disadvantage in others when wrong used. (Searching that tank 2000 m away, while not being aware the one at 200 m..). If the tank is moving, aiming may be impossible for ranges above 100 m (Rough terrain, where the crew is thrown around and the barrel as well). Human factor The crew may be confronted by contradictions imposing stress (When i concentrate on that target another may use the time and flank me..., i should move for that i'm a harder target but i should hold still to fire and hit..., damn the next shot will kill us..and so fort, and fort..). An experienced crew with a high morale level will perform much much better in stress imposing situations than new recruits. This will be especially true when things get hot (Bad weather, difficult terrain, overwhelming odds, fierce battle). On the other hand there may be situations were the performance won't be so much different, those will be situations were the circumstances are favourable (Wide open field of fire, good light, good weather, "secure" position, beginning of engagement with superior tactical position). Here one can assume that performance will be quite near the testrange results. An elite crew will be superior in examination of the overall situation on the battlefield (They can almost smell it...). They will know more likely when to engage/ disengage. They will know how to maximize the effect of their weaponsystem. They can be compared to a top athlete in sports, they will perform at the edge of what is possible for humans. For the average enemy they will seem like devils. Now to quatify the deviations from the testrange results is a very difficult task. But as i said, when i put 2 tanks on a perfectly plain open ground - front to front - aginst each other, and the crew have some battle experience they will perform very near the testrange results (IMHO). Maybe from 90 % to 70 %, but an elite crew will perform equal or even above, since the testrange results are already averaged. The same applies against targets on the move. IMO, there is NO valid reason for the HUGE deviation in CM even at laughable close ranges were even an absolute no tanker with a one hour experience would hit 90 shots out of 100. How can a tank miss a stationary target 400 m away several times ??? In his glasses the target almost sits on his head and fills his whole amingview. There is no logical reason... With this situation it's hard to deploy real tactics, because even with a dead sure shot bad luck may always interfere (more often than not). So the whole boils down into pure attrition battles. It hinders the player to think tactically, but instead forces him to "i have to put in 5 tanks to be sure, and if i have a lucky day everything will be pulverised within 2 - 3 turns and the battle decided....), gamey YES !!!! (The same problems also applies to AT, like manheld AT-weapons, use that panzerschreck ? "God will he hit out from this best of possible position at a range of 40 m ?" (More often than not he won't) The whole problem stems from a merge of logical types in this game. Infantry is an aggregate of people (In social science an aggregate of people can be predicted by probability models, but not the behaviour of a single human) -> Thus CM with the probability model fits quite close (A squad consists of 8 - 13 people, and the individual behaviour is of no importance). A tank MUST be viewed as a single entity which exhibits behaviour (quite similar to an individual person) which in fact can not be described satisfactory with a probability model, without distortions at the single engagement level. Over hundreds of engagements however the result may be adequate. Here the CM-model clearly is over it's limits, since the result can only be achieved with a class, instead of an instance. So it's not a very wise choice to fight a battle with a single PzIV and PzV since the result in the single battle may be unpredictable and not follow tactical rules. It means further, that the player would only be able to proof/justify his tactics throughout a lot of battles. But since in PBEM a battle lasts weeks, and the human has not the kind of memory to handle this, he will be restricted. (And those tanks in CM look so cute...Damn !) ? Greets Daniel [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 10-18-2000).]

To Jeff, You didn't answer my question, but instead asked one by yourself about the validity of allied testimonies. OK The data was provided by Grisha Topic: "US Tankers & the opinions they had for us armor" One may throw in, that the report may be colored, to achieve some goals with the High Command. Right, but there are also the same testimonies by german Tankers and Russian. There is a documentary film about the battle of Kursk, where mainly participants were interviewed. The germans emphasized the fact that they tried to engage the numerically always superior Russians over long range, whereas the Russians tried to rush up to them to close in to their killrange. Apart from that i can answer the question i put to you myself: Numbers don't fall from the trees...., how do you think were the numbers about the engagement distances gathered ? By stories and memories of participants i think. What stories ? What was the selective criteria ? How were the numbers extracted from the stories (I don't think they boiled it in water...). Furthermore can you explain me the extreme drop at 600 m (Factor 5) ????! And to the acuraccy/range/hit capability at range subject: It's a very wise choice to start from "hard" facts, say experimental well defined outset. The shooting testrange is quite a good example, much better in fact than the battlefield, to extract the potential of the Tank weaponsystem. It should be the starting point. Why because the battlefield imposed about the same restrictions on eather side, so they in fact cancel each other out. (Of course the change can have significant impact on tactics still) To the trajectory of the L/56 (extracted from the "Tigerfibel"): A Target 2m high at 500 m will be hit, at following range guessings of the gunner: 500 - 1000 m !! In the first case he hits the very bottom, otherwise the top. So range errors at medium to close distance is not a big issue, BUT surely at ranges reaching 1500 - 2000 m ! And exactly for that purpose the aiming/ranging mechanism of the Tiger was built. -> Go to Link: http://www.panzerelite.com/ Developer journal Zeiss optics, the open the picture with the woman and look and see. Also their you see that the M4 optics couldn't be used effectively at ranges beyond 600 m (short 75 mm) - 1000 (76 mm), because no rangefinding mechanism was in place. Why not provide some Testrange data from the M4 guns ?? (Nowhere in those Handbooks ????) Greets Daniel [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 10-18-2000).]

Jeff, The russian data first of all reflects what did happen on the battlefield (Btw: How did they collect the data, since you have only two methods to collect them: 1. Supervising all WWII-Battles personally (Needs a lot of good spotters with iron nerves...) -> Describe the method 2. By oral testimony or after action reports (History)) (3) Since there are no "hard" facts, data can easily be manipulated. Maybe the table was created to justify some sort of tankdoctrine for instance.... (It's seems to fit perfectly for the T-34, since he was able to kill a Tiger I and Panther at around 500 - 800 m...) The data seem to be in contradiction to the german and US Testimonies on the ability of german armor at long ranges (1000 m and beyond). It says nothing directly to acurracy and hit probability, it rather sums up the result of battles, where a lot of other variables other than acuraccy and hit probability come in. For instance the doctrine to rush towards the enemy and not halt until in kill range of 500 m for instance....., or the use of smoke... (There may be other interpretations), but they are interpretations from an abstract table. Furthermore all testimonies by tankers emphasized the fact that the heavy german tanks engaged regularly over long ranges with success (US, German and Soviet). Of course there were (many) instances where a M-10 or M4 76 could achieve similar results, but what is important is the impression and generality. The M-10 for instance of course can kill a Tiger or Panther at 1500 m, and if for pure luck or a flank- rear- shot. But they were in a definitive disadvantage head to head as mentioned in the 1945-er Report to Eisenhower, the matter is emphasized throughout the whole report and in perfectly unisono !! Greets Daniel [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 10-17-2000).]

I BUMP THIS UP And findings from CM-Tankbattles with a big scenario: - US Tank AI is contrary to the real thing, US tanks halt immediately when fired upon always first. They will not rush toward the enemy even if it brings them an advantage. -Well in the case of the battle i fought (TGN Scenario "Battle for Seebach"). The US tanks (2 Vet Jumbos, 1 Vet Jackson, 2 Vet 105's, 1 M476(w) and 12 or so M3A1's) had to cross around 100 m open ground to a "save" position behind houses, but they instead drived back and forth throwing some smoke while being decimated stupidly by 1 Crk Jagdpanther, 1 Vet PzIV70, 1 Crk KT. The battle was an unrealistic slaughter with still very strange sideffects. Range was around 770 - 1100 m, whereas mostly around 900 m. NO german tank hit a moving tank, but several moving M3's (Regular). To top it all one Jumbo used up atleast 20 88 KwK/70 rounds where around 10 shots hit the turret front, only one penetrating without any effect. The tank was immobilized but could not be killed at a range of 776 m on plain level ground. The Jumbo had 1 penetrating turret hit and a penetrating hull hit without any effect from a 8.8 cm gun ! (I suppose penetrating here means the round goes clean into the turret....). The KT was hit around 5 times, where it was immobilized, the gun was hit, the commander wounded... (I did it two times, always with the same result). Bad luck ? F...Y... !! Would the US-tanks have been commanded by a human no hit at all would have occurred, since the german crack-crews were completely unable to hit them while moving at around 800 - 900 m. So ASL is absolutely right beyond around 700 m a moving tank is almost safe from enemy tank fire, thus cutting down the heavy (german) tanks, while boosting the weak (US) ones. I personally wouldn't mind that, but please relable the german tanks then as "movie" german M4's or so. (Why in Hell did they develop such powerful guns, when they couldn't hit a barndoor with it ??) Some shots lied around 5 degrees off axis to a stationary target (Crack crews). And open ground is open ground whether in Russia, US or Europe or anywhere in the universe.. (View is not obstructed by anything else then air) Here once again some battlefield experiences.... (which in btw perfectly suit in the testrange figures...) The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland reported their experience in employing the PzKpfw. VI Tiger from 7 to 19 March 1943 in the area of Poltawa-Belgorad. (As a report to the frontworthyness, since it was a new weapon then, and not a propaganda warstory). ".......First-round hits were usually achieved with the 88mm KwK gun at ranges between 600 to 1000 meters. At these ranges, the Panzer-Granate absolutely penetrated through the frontal armor of T-34 tanks. After penetrating through the frontal armor, the Panzer-Granate usually still destroyed the engine at the rear of the tank. In very few cases could the T-34 be set on fire when fired at from the front. In 80 percent of the cases, shots from the same range hitting the side of the hull toward the rear or the rear of the tank resulted in the fuel tanks exploding. Even at ranges of 1500 meters and longer, during favorable weather, it is possible to succeed in penetrating the T-34 with minimal expenditure of ammunition." ???????????????????? What do we have ? - A detailed documentation of testrange figures - testimonies from the front And both in prerfect harmony. (Btw a german tanker i knew, said exactly the same thing, he served from 1939 - 1944 as a tanker). - Why did the germans waste such effort to build heavy armed expensive tanks ? (To crack a T-34 at 500 m you don't need a 8.8 cm.) What were the design goals ? Why not build something in the line of the M4 ? The answer is: To hit the enemy at a range, where he is unable to kill you. And if this goal is physically impossible why were they produced then ? And why did so many people lie ? So where's the Error ?? But what's even more annoying with tank battles is the weak tank AI. Why do tanks just sit around and await their slaughter, when 100 m near a formidable cover is available, which brings them even nearer to the enemy and a more favourable tactical position ? Greets Daniel

Gentleman, To the "Zeiss"-subject once more. The most important question to go ahead is: WAS THERE ANY HELP IN THE AMERICAN SIGHTS TO DETERMINE RANGE ? YES OR NO ? If yes how did it work (technical explanation please so all can go through it, no citing of it's worth first) Thank you ! Daniel

Slapdragon, You mentioned: "Penetration of Armour Plate" originally by (British) Ordnance Board Subcommittee of the Armour Piercing Projectile Committee (reproduced by U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Technical Information Service #PB91127506). -- Charles Where can i get the whole of it ? (Armor vs. Armor 1939 is lacking vital information) Thanks Daniel

To rune, Thank you for your data, hope there is more to come.... We have to take one step after another, and not both together or we may land on the bottom.... Greets Daniel

To Slapdragon, (Sorry i can't keep up with the posting speed..) Thank you for the data about the gyrosystem max acceleration question. What's still open: - Detailed explanation of M4-gun sighting device. - Reason off to why some units actually used the gyro, and some not. -> Some vague indications were given already: - Not trained enough - Crews dismayed any advantage - Prone to malfunction - A possible danger for the tank crew (?) In my opinion the US-tankers didn't leave any possibility out to enhance the lethality of their equipment (One only think about the sandbags ladden tanks, or fieldmod welded add. armor). So why were they so reluctant to use a system which could give them an advantage ? My very provisional answer: The advantage was not that obvious, or the system was prone to malfunction (maybe due to lack of proper maintenance...). Greets Daniel

I think the whole optics thing was explained completely wrong. IT'S NOT THE QUALITY OF THE GLASSES, BUT INSTEAD THE MAN MACHINE INTERFACE ! What that means IMO - and my experience only goes back to Panzer Elite - that in a M4 there is (almost) no means to gather range information, whereas with the german system it was genuinely easy ! (Already as a 10 - year old kid i could understand it (i had an example of the "Tiger Fibel" a training manual for the Tiger I), this in CONJUNCTION with a quite flat trajectory makes it easy to hit a target stationary within 1000 m almost with the first shot at average for a regular trained tanker. Below 700 m the trajectories also in the M4 makes it easy to hit since ranging errors would not make that big difference. So the problem for acurate shots beyond is RANGE aqcuiring. Maybe somebody in that huge forum can explain us equally detailed as with the "Zeiss-system" (Available at the Panzer Elite site) how the System(s) for the M4 worked..... To Wilhammer and the gyro-subject, does the gyro compensate for infinite accelerations ? Greets Daniel

I would vote for the rarity option, when the very rare Tigers, Kingtigers, Jagdpanthers usw. are uprated in lethality, also the PzKpfw IV should have it's turret armor rating readressed since it consisted of Face hardened armor (Already in the game ?). Then it would be a very interesting option bringing the game possibly slightly out of balance (against the germans), this could be balanced back by the pointing system if necessary and possible. Greets Daniel

Wilhammer, Nice theory ! But on what kind of ground, paved road or over a bumpy field ? Don't you think, that this feature if it worked as you intend it worked would have found very warm praises by it's users, because it would have given the tankers a HUGE advantage over the enemy ! As i stated before, the gyro in CM doesn't bother me, because all vehicles seem to have gyros already built in (Think about that 0.5 Jeep slamming through the landscape at full pace, putting out sniper strikes on everything around...). What we have here, is that testdata and the design suggest a strong advantage, but what is lacking is actual testimony from both sides in combat. (Also the germans should have had noticed such a gain in lethality...). Greets Daniel

CavScout, Nothing new here ! The post by Fionn is absolutely congruent to my own opinion. One just has to look at the production figures for M4's and Tiger I's or Kingtigers. What's the question, is the representation in the game (Tiger too weak, ok, overrated). Influenced by several tests my impression tends strongly to the first (I may be wrong..), but even more important the range/hit probability seems to be strange. If a tank needs 3 shots at 300 m to hit a stationary target one would suspect that at 600 m 9 shots would be needed, if all system variables are the same, with the exception of range, according to the rules of geometry and physics. Why becomes the system more precise at middle ranges ? Greets Daniel

Steve, Thanks for your (first) post ! (The second emphasizes on gyros, which i have no concern about at all, but instead it's invetion and use in the discussion...) This post brought the whole thing into another light for me ! I also have to confess myself, that i might have a favour for german armor, mainly because it was superior in certain aspects, and represents the crown of tank warfare in WWII, but i NEVER want that to be represented in the game in a way that brings it out of balance !!!! In fact i also enjoy to play the allied side, but then i want the german armor to be as tough (as i might expected it by my of course prejudiced mind.....). My opinion is that it is easier to win a battle with the US, because in real they had (almost) everything in full. Wouldn't it be possible from your side, to give us a catalog/list of requirements to be met, for that a subject can be examined to go into the game ? And maybe to incorporate a hint in what direction a possible implementation should go algorithm wise (procedural or probability) The "Zeiss" thing to me is an acronym for the spotting, aiming, aquiring at all ranges. (I did a (great) scenario lately from a geographic photopicture of my nearest neighbourhood, and was astonished to see how big the map had to be only to contain the most important features (2 x 2.3 km). I know my neigbourhood very well, and was astonished with the completed scenario, that distances seem much greater in it than in reality...., reason ?). As i measured my jogging circle i was astonished to find out, it would never fit in it. So to me the range issue is a big one, which has to be proved. I perfectly understand your position that you can't put in every ones desire. Sometimes i think, me and others are just to eager to get things corrected, and we suppose you the poor developper to dig in the information mess, and put it right.... CM rules ! But the M2 has to be remedied, damn !!! Greets Daniel [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 10-03-2000).] [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 10-03-2000).]

Slapdragon, Agree 100 % ! But how administer that ? Maybe there should be a Forum only for historical evidences and one for the more hard part (Tests, models and so on) ? Today it's just a big hurly burly and information hard to keep together. There's already a lot buried in the thousands of posts already made. A rating for Top Subjects would also be a great aid to aim the efforts to the important things (As indicator of course). Greets Daniel

Spook, Your reasoning is a quite strange one. It goes about that way: 1.) If there is no test evidence of the effect of "Zeiss" optics, it can't be taken into the game. 2.) To test it is impossible. So in short: There is no possibility that Zeiss optics can make it into the game. Right ? So why the complex sentence ? To the "Aberdeen" test: On what ground was it executed ? At which speed ? How was the improvement measured ? And in general: Why were the US-Tankers not trained to use them properly ? And why do even Regular crews use it then in CM ? In short again: One single source is evidence enough to incorporate it into the game not take into account the real operational deployment. Great ! (I myself doesn't worry about the Gyro-system in CM, but what worries me is the reasoning behind.) Greets Daniel

(Huch a long post, sorry) First i feel sorry that Steve and others quitted, because i think it was nobodys intention to hurt somebody. AND OF COURSE WE ALL LOVE THIS GAME !!! I think the problem must be divided into the different aspects how "something" is certified to enter the model world of CM. First i think WE all want a game that is realistic in a way that the tactics of WWII can be played through from either side, and still be balanced to allow either side to "win" (And with win i don't only mean the plain word, but also win in enoyment..). I DON'T want the Supertank which kills everything, but i also want to have the differences of the different weapon-system "accurately" modelled. So far i think all of us can agree. Where the fight starts is where the details come into play. Evidence on any subject in the real world can ONLY be gathered by perception through our senses. (Science is a special category thereoff) Now what methods do we have to "proof" evidence on the subjects laying 60 years in the past ? FIRST and most important in my opinion and a base for further investigation are the testimonies of people involved, that means quotes, stories by soldiers from either side. These have to be crosschecked against each other to get a rough picture of the subject, favourably since the object under investigation is the complex called "war" testimonies from each side should be taken into account evenly. Of course one has to examine always the background of a given statement. Was it maybe for propaganda or honestly meant ? If available this statments then should be crosschecked with possible available so called "scientific" sources about the matter, like testreports. Preferable from both sides. Of course also here the material has to be examined for acuraccy in the environmental setup, acuraccy of methods used, comparability and so fort. Provided data probably will deviate throughout the different sources, then the reasons for the deviation should be adressed, maybe important variables are unknown for comparison, as could be easily possible. Fictional Example: All AT-guns of a specific manufacturer are measured on a manufacturers testsite. The resulting testreport does not include all the relevant data like the gun powder batch used for the grenade for instance, or the cristalline structure of the armorplate wasn't examined, but instead only referred as BNH 220. The same gun measured on a different testsite produces different data, also there important data is lacking. What to do ? If possible priorize the impact of the different variables, if not calculate the average by leaving away the values devaiting the most from the average and calculate again. Of course if a (near) complete mathematical model exist, this can be taken to justify the testdata. After screening the testdata this shold be compared against the statements. If great deviation is indicated, the statements must be screened through for hidden reasons/objections. It's a fractal process, you can go through it again and again, but already with the first pass some fundamental evidence can be derived. As far as CM is concerned, the object discussed to alter, should be substantially enough and easy to implement with the current model. A subject can be called substantially if it's implementation would have a significant impact on the game (Tactics). As far as i can overview the current "important" subjects are the following: Tank issues in general: - Acuraccy at all ranges (Hit probability), this divides into three subcategories: - Optics (Spot and aim) technically - Gyrostabilizer - Human performance (Spotting, aquiring, aiming) - Armor representation to some extent - Penetration power to some extent The M2 issue (0.5 inch) Artillery issue - Pattern - Time intervalls Whereas the M2- and Tank- issue are the most important ones, since huge threads exist. To the current thread about the "Zeiss" optics, which in fact is one about aiming / hit probability over short to longrange: The subject in my opinion could be easily cleared using the above described method, the same for all the others.... There were several posters which tried honestly to contribute data for the different subjects, but none of them were accepted but rather denied or not commented at all. There will be NEVER a scientific proof on any of these subjects, but instead proof by presumptive evidence which always leaves some questions open. It was absolutely correct to mention that the gyroscopic doesn't fulfill the criteria of "scientific" evidence, and it's presumptive evidence is very questionalbe, since it stems from only one single test, which Steve mentions. On what ground was the test executed ? On a perfectly flat road or in the field ? Is it really true that the US-tankers weren't trained to use them ??? If so is it scientifically correct when even a regular crew knows to handle it in CM ? In other words, the reasoning of Steve to counter (and i emphasize counter) the reasoning and evidence of the "Zeiss Pros" was invalid itself and didn't fulfill the requirements he posed on the "Zeiss" subject. But why counter ? Why not examin the evidences properly ? Where is danger on the way ? I want a precise as possible CM, and NOT a game to kill US or Germans (there are better games for that kind of "amusement")... When i kill a Tiger i want to be proud off kwowing that i achieved something. Hope minds cool down a bit, so we all can enjoy CM and it's predecessors Greets Daniel

Grisha, What happens here seems to be the same thing as actually in the war. The facts are denied, and debated away by some questionable testdata or even more questionable, reality is corrected by some crude math calculations, which seem to proof that the US-tanks and guns are a match or superior against the german armor. However the guys at the front knew better...., and had to pay for the wrong assumptions day by day.... One has just to look at the prizes for Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers in CM to see that something is wrong. In real the production of a tiger and panther was around 3 - 5 times more expensive than a M4, which was a real massproduct. In CM you have NO CHANCE with a Tiger I to take on 5 M4 with the 76mm at a range between 1000 and 1500 m. Try it out ! In real almost every shot of the Tiger would kill a M4, so they would have to rush like mad for the kill range of around 500 - 700 m, in which time the Tiger would have killed at least 2 - 3 of them and have enough time to dissapear behind a smoke curtain to a new position. So a Tiger should cost around 3 - 5 times more than the best M4 -> Make the M4 much more cheaper and Tigers and Panthers more expensive. Greets Daniel

Splinty, Yeah the low quality steel.., what source can proof this ?? Quotes by US-Tankers show a different picture. For instance: The US 76 mm with HVAP should be able to penetrate a Tiger I up to 2500 m (Taking into account the 85 or 90 % armor and the so called weak spots). Is there any evidence that this ever happened in the real ?? And to the US-steel quality, are there any numbers on quality of their steel in actual vehicles out of production ? What are the criterias for low quality steel ? The Brinnel numbers ? The critalline structure of the plate ? Or the actual performance in combat ? Greets Daniel

Vanir, Just take a look at the collected US-statements which Grisha provided to us. There are different aspects which make up a good tank: - Powerful gun with low trajectory - Good armorprotection - High mobility - Good sighting devices The Tiger I was superior on all or most of these categories against the allied tanks (M4' and Destroyers). And it is still suggested by CM that the Tiger had low quality armor, which there is no real proof of. The 100 mm mantlet is still no simulated correctly which has a gap to the additional 100 m by the turret itself. There must be a reason why the Tigers were so feared by the US-tankers...., or were they just wimpy ????!!!! The US 76 mm shell is undercalibrated against the 100 or 200 mm (in fact the turret has 200 mm +) of the Tiger, thus changing the possibility of a penetration significantly especially if it performs 101 mm at 1000 m which means only that 50 % of the shells will penetrate completely. The US projectiles were also inferior to the german ones using an explosive filler which boosted performance.The HVAP shells for the 76mm had the shatter gap from 200 - 1200 m where it shattered against armor (Not revealed by tests in the US, because plates of lower BNH were used, than acutally used in german tanks -> thus bringing the 101 mm further in question). Furthermore HVAP is very sensitive against angle of impact, where it's effectiveness fells off rapidly. Thus the quote of US-Tankers that the HVAP only partly offsets the more powerful 75 mm's and 88 mm's of the germans. Greets Daniel [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 09-30-2000).]

John, So what sources are accepted ? The formulas used do undermine the wrong "Jentz" figures do not represent reality, but instead are rough assumptions of reality, for instance the effects of the explosive charge at a near penetrating hit are not represented. To get the real values through maths a much more complex model would have to be choosen incorporating an endless count of variables. What is important is the following: The 88/KwK43 and 88/L56 could kill any allied tank up to 1000 yards. Shells from a 8,8 cm bouncing off a jumbo under 1000 m is ridicolous. A US-tanker stated when asked to improve armor for the M4: "A 8.8 cm penetrates any practical armor." Have you read the collected statements of US-tankers provided by Grisha ? (Or are these sources also rendered inacurate ?) I quote just a few findings: - Superior mobility of Pz V against M4 even with the new suspension - Far superior sights - Far superior guns - Superior projectiles (Souped up...) - Far superior acuraccy at ranges over 1000 m - US 90 mm believed to be inferior to 88/KwK43 - HVAP remedies only partly for the 76 mm These quotes are from men actually being there... Why not accept it ? Greets Daniel [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 09-30-2000).] [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 09-30-2000).]

Thanks Grisha, The New York Times article already says it all. And the Eisenhower statement should it made clear once and for all. There was no US-tank that could stand up against a Panther, Tiger - not to mention the Kingtiger - front to front regardless of Tungsten or not.. When will we see this in CM ??? Make the Panthers and Tigers more expensive, as they were numerically overmatched 10 : 1 in the West. But once on the field they should perform as in the real and strike fear into the enemy.... Greets Daniel

From the best source available (http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/german_guns7.html): The 88mm/KwK43 (Kingtiger)APCBC: against plate BNH of 230 - 270 at 30°: 100 500 1000 1500 2000 202 185 165 148 132 And remember ALL german projectiles up from 20 mm had a HE filler which was very effective !!! (No US or british projectile), so after penetration the 88mm created a real mess. Of course the 88 KwK43 and 88/L56 were far superior to anything the allieds had. Greets Daniel [This message has been edited by danielh (edited 09-30-2000).]

Unbalance ??? The impression the Tiger I gives today in CM is a shame, it can be killed easily by cromwells, M4 76 crap up to 1000 m which is complete nonsense. Of course they were very rare, and should therefore be much more expensive. Greets Daniel

One more to eat... Found on: http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/background/ammotypes4.html (A very good site) Use of a piercing cap does not guarantee that the projectile will not shatter. In the case of the USA 76mm M1 gun firing an M62 APCBC projectile the shatter gap occurs between about 200m and 1200m, when the target plate is around 100mm thick and hard, such as typical German vehicle armour. That is why the USA 76mm M1 gun was a Tiger I killer on the charts, but not in real life. When it was fired in tests it tended not to shatter because USA test plate was somewhat soft, so the shatter gap was not revealed by the USA testing and development program Greets Daniel