Paul Lakowski

Steve I have been on the recieving end of racism so I know what it is. As far as I'm concerned this racist discussion is over. I would like to know how BTS is going to deal with Russian penetration data in CM-2? If the German data is ignored is the Russian data also going to be ignored? I include Charles in a small Email discussion on Russian projectiles and we found out, from Valera, that the 122mm APHE round had a tendancy to detonate right after impact. Which suggest that spaced plates could defeat this projectile. Valera also suggested this might explain why the 122mm was defeated by Tiger -1 mantle [ spaced plate]. If you don't go to the Russian sources you won't find out these little tidbits.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Your comment was racist, and your post an attempt to start a flame war. Even worse you cannot see it as racist. I don't want to stop the crystal rubbing and tarot card reading of the 88L71 group, do it all you please. My attempt was to help you form a useful argument, since everytime this subject comes up there is a barrage of slandering the game designers for no useful end. I just want to make sure everytime you read some fact from your tarot cards, a scientific explanation is there for a little reality check. So, rub crystals and pull tarort to your hearts content! Be happy! You may be able to soon repeal the theory of gravity if you pull the correct tarot cards. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve what are you on about with this rub crystals stuff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Why should you prove it? I don't think you should prove it. I think the 88L71 is modelled just fine as it is. I think you should just drop the whole thing. However, if you really really want to build a model and argue coherently, than not only do I support you, but I will help you form the basis for the argument, and if you strike gold I will provide my energies, despite initially not thinking you are correct, to lobby for a change in the engine. In other words, it seems any attempt to bring this discussion around to actually doing something constructive leads to name calling and racism, which in science means their is nothing here. The Cold Fusion guys were the same way ten years ago. This is our boards cold fusion. In science (which yes, I know many people are in the antiscience crowd) the established does not have to prove itself, the information outside the establishment has to first show that the establishment is wrong, then come up with a new model. If however you just want to have a beer and pretzels crystal rubbing on the subject, just say so in your post heading. You could form the Subjective Agreement Club, and vote on matters of physics, maybe even repeal gravity by acclimation, and I wont post one line in disagreement . Or you can discuss the issue as a matter of historical note, and I will put on my historians cap and follow the rules of historical research, which is far easier to argue subjectively because all history is subjective. I just think no one wants to put forward their own theory, and I am willing to bet no one will. It is a lot of work, for no financial gain, as I well know from the real world of research.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve I think your losing it, this bit about racism is a 'cop out' as its taken out of context .I told you that if you talked to the Russian source and imply that there results are flawed because there Russian, he'd ignore you, as another ignorant westerner. I said this cause I've seen it happen to others. What you seem tobe saying is that you see nothing wrong with the way the 88 is handled , so why fix it if it ain't broken...well you point is duly noted. If your serious about this, answers can be found but it requires digging.I guess what your saying to us in this round about manner is that you have nothing to contribute.

Steve, I ignor rasism which is why I ignor most of you rabblings. Second the formula has been found wanting already in the area of slanted penetration which is why it was dismissed decades ago. Third I'm aleady working on a replacement by simple adaptation of Andersons long rod formula which already has been shown to work in this region...but like anything this takes time and digging for data. Again unlike you I'll do the work instead of waxing eternal. Rgds Paul

Excuse me Steve[thanx atleast now your a name], there's no flame war unless your conducting one. You where the one who implied that since it was a Russian tests it couldn't be trusted. So don't go accusing me of racism. And as for this continued reference to "rub crystals "???? Steve explain your self, this must be some new scientific testing method I've never heard of Lets face facts here we don't know much about the test method ,so no conclusion can be drawn either way, if you choose to be sceptical thats you problem. We don't know much about the impact of previously penetrated plate, so there's little debate to have- period. It might surprise you to note that in one test of plate penetrated by capped AP shot the loss of resistance was only about 5%. No one here seems to understand the extent of how penetration criteria changes the published results, so results from other countries test can't be properly indexed. No one here seems to understand how % chance of penetration is indexed to the published penetration values and yet they can state that this data is right and that data is wrong. When the difference from most of the results could easily fall with a standard deviation of each other . The implication runs very deep, I've been told- by BTS- that their formula works even though it has problems predicting angled impact[most cases]. No one has told me what set of data proves there penetration formula works . Theres no science in BTS formula unless it can be varified by test results. But all the test data is flawed by the standards you present so the formula can't be proven or disproven....nice touch Instead of arguing why don't you go out and read the journals...theres tons of them about and maybe then we can have an intelligent discussion.

I never worry about people who don't use there real name, and I find that what people really know about a topic is inversely proportional to how much they talk around a subject .I guess your a scientist who thinks that since he knows something can speculate about a unrelated field[ always a dangerous thing]. I know something of how plate weakness occur upon penetration and know all about penetration definitions. But since your coming in with a head of steam I suggest the following ..go to Valeras web site Dgroup and ask him. If your rude he will quite rightly ignore you. If you engage him in dialogue and push this rubbish about russian tests being unreliable he'll also ignore you [ again quite rightly as another ignorant westerner]. But if you talk to him you might find the answers you seek. Anyway I'm away until Wednesday, and we'll see if you've learnt any thing by then.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: An example of shoddy testing is what they did to that King Tiger. If they had really wanted to test it, they would have cut it apart and done a series of armor tests in static test rigs - done impact hardness tests -- done all sorts of lab tests. This is exactly what the US did with Soviet tanks and led to the adoption of the L7 105mm. Parking it out in the field and peppering it with repeated shots assures that only the numbers for the first hit were valid as armor looses its strength with penetration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You obviously havn't been following the discussion .... every one did this in WW-II as John pointed out and BTW how do you know they didn't do Metallurgy tests, how do you think they got there hardness numbers. This is a common problem with western views of Eastern tech. "They don't do it the way we do it so they do it wrong". Any ballistic engineer can look at the penetration series and results and adjust the data accordingly. But no don't listen to me, ignor all the wealth of data and make the same mistakes with CM-2. And just to prove the point...we were analysing American Impact test data on the M-744 DU alloy from Aberdeen Proving ground, and found that they doctored the data ... and this was 1991. Well actually they didn't doctor the data they just didn't tell the whole story So I guess that means American data's usless too

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: It's interesting that the Russians rated the KTs armor as being notably inferior to the Panther's because of the lack of molybdenum, making it brittle. Yet CM rates it at 90% while the Panther is at 85%. Also, I believe that the KTs off road movement in CM is somewhat greater than what the Russians could achieve (10 MPH on a dirt road!). I wonder if the KTs very poor mechanicle reliability could be modeled in CM. Perhaps there could be a small increased chance of becoming immobilized do to mechanical failure separate from the chance of bogging. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> KT main armor was only 220 BHN while Panthers was 260-280 BHN so it was better armor. Also I heard the CW on the KT reliabity was that it was quite reliable as long as supplies of parts last.

Lets see Jentz data's no good and Ivan Hoggs data's no good and the Russian test data's no good.....what exact data is good? What data did BTS use to confirm that there formula [ which isn't theres actually] works. Wheres the 'good science' here when data is discarded whole sale? Ballistic researchers don't discard data they correct it to the reference point [normalize] to make a better fit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Better than "when you can toss out a bunch of half thought out ramblings and take test data at face value because someone took the time to write it down the 'skies the limit'. In all seriousness, we keep peeking into this thread to see if anybody has actually constructed a scientifically sound and backed up position to question the way CM works. So far it has not happened. Also wondering why the big "angle conspiracy" faded away when Charles mentioned the source of CM's angle penetration formulas. Got quiet around here fast... Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-21-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ON YEA Thats probably why its fallen off , I for one don't plan on doing you research for you,I've got better things to do-and as to "half thought out ramblings".....who are you refering to now????

WOW when you don't have to restrict you formula to approaching the experimental results then the 'skies the limit'

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem: Doctor- 1) Lend-Lease to Soviet Russia. Trucks, trucks, and more trucks. The Sovs had to move their heavy industry East (an amazing undertaking to begin with) and had to move their troops around beyond railheads. U.S-provided motor transport was a significant factor in those successes. 2) Hindsight is 20/15. Read the telegrams between heads of state, the intelligence reports, and the editorials of the time ('41/'42). Almost No one believed the Soviets would be able to hold off collapse. Morale and will and propaganda and similar factors played (and play) a tremendous role in wars and campaigns. It was not a given at the time that the Germans would be defeated in Russia. The addition of a Second Front on the continent of Europe was deemed essential for the survival of the Soviet Union, and indeed was essential. -dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While Lend Lease certainly helped to 'mechanize' the Red Army it was far from collapse by Stalingrad.The Red Army would have just paid a higher price without the support. Truth is the Red army could have won the war by its self cause Germany lost the war @ tyhe gates of moscow in 1941...everything after that was down hill. US had to get into Europe to pervent Soviet post war domination of the European market. The Best thing the Americans ever did for Europe was the 'Marshal Plan'.

Lets try guilt. A large faction of American society didn't want to have anything to do with Europe and would rather stay on the side lines and sell arms to both sides and not get involved like WW-I. FDR lead the charge and when the guntlet was cast they had no choice. They didn't actually contribute in a serious way until late 43/44. By then the the war was won and American high command correctly recognized that if Soviet Union was allowed to beat the Nazis and over run europe, then Americas biggest potential market would have gone up in smoke, to say nothing of a Red Super power menace replacing the Nazis.

You'll not get an objective opinion from this board as its dedicated to this game??? or did you already made up you mind then before you asked?

Go ask on the TANK NET , they can tell you all about modern tanks armor and penetration etc etc. [url="http://www.tanknet.org/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi"]http://www.tanknet.org/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi[/url] [/HTML]

Simon if you Email me your address, I'll set up a little group discussion with Robert on this topic along with John and Lewis [if hes interested?].

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: Does anyone know how these tests got to the millimeter of penetration? Did the tester put thicker and thicker slabs of armor varying by 1 mm down range till a certain percentage of AP would not go through and then declare that the penetration? I can imagine having 5 mm differing slabs and picking the first one depending on calculated penetration and then working from there. Anyone? Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If they follow normal proceedure they will either test fire into a slightly thicker plate and measure the depth of penetration . or calculate based on how much charge weight was needed to achieve a penetration in relation to a fixed range/ thickness penetration. Inaddition the'll be several shots to confirm a penetration calculation figure. Normally these may only involve 3-6 shots at each range /angle test case.Given the large variation that shows up in indepth statistical analysis of penetration, a big difference between various test conditions could just be that the projectiles selected of armor selected under performed or over performed. This can easly explain a difference of a few mm. Larger differences are usually calculating errors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: John, I remember a little further back in this thread you mentioned one Robert Livingston who claimed to have found a flaw in the British reports' handling of angled penetration. Now that it seems that most of the discrepancy between CM (British report) and test data is in the area of angled penetrations, I can't help but wonder. My questions would be: Has Livingston ever revealed in detail what this problem was? If so, is Charles aware of it and was it taken into consideration? What is his opinion on it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He has but he's not talking right now. Him and Lorrin Bird found a correlation between shape of the nose and slanted penetration that works for projectiles above 50mm. They are currently working on a website and a book to explain 'There model of penetration'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: John, I remember a little further back in this thread you mentioned one Robert Livingston who claimed to have found a flaw in the British reports' handling of angled penetration. Now that it seems that most of the discrepancy between CM (British report) and test data is in the area of angled penetrations, I can't help but wonder. My questions would be: Has Livingston ever revealed in detail what this problem was? If so, is Charles aware of it and was it taken into consideration? What is his opinion on it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He has but he's not talking right now. Him and Lorrin Bird found a correlation between shape of the nose and slanted penetration that works for projectiles above 50mm. They are currently working on a website and a book to explain 'There model of penetration'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: 8.8cm KwK.39/43 1018m/s APCBC @ 0^ CM Data: 100m - 220mm 500m - 205mm 1000m - 188mm 2000m - 157mm 8.8cm KwK.39/43 1000m/s APCBC @ 0^ Spielberger: 100m - 220 500m - 205 1000m - 186 2000m - 154 8.8cm KwK.43 Pzgr.39/43 1018m/s APCBC @ 30^ CM Data: 100m - 177mm 500m - 165mm 1000m - 151mm 1500 - N/A 2000m - 121mm 8.8cm KwK.43 Pzgr.39/43 1000m/s APCBC @ 30^. Pzgr.40/43 1130m/s APCR in ( )'s Jentz: 100m - 202mm (237mm) 500m - 185mm (217mm 1000m - 165mm (197mm) 1500m - 148mm (170mm) 2000m - 132mm (152mm) Now how can the 0^ data be so close in CM's formula @ 0^ & the 30^ data be so skewed in various examples, & sometimes by a wide margin, Especialy vs the actual test data that provided the 'accurate' 0^ results vs CM's 30^ disputed results. Again all this has remained unanswered to date. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And this is the problem, in truth theres no such thing as a vertical impact on a tank its all about angles and if the model miss the mark by such a large amount on angled impact then its no good. At least if there was a way of editing the penetration values one could correct this, but given the complexity of the formula I don't know how that would be done.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dittohead: Although not specifically related to the 88mm, I have a question concerning the US Tunsten round. From the charts 88mm Pzgr 40 HVAP increases penetration say 25%. But US HVAP increases penetration almost 100%. Is this right and why such a big jump in US rounds? Tony<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cause the tip to body diameter of the German AP 40 shot [except the 50mm ] are around 9:1 while the US rounds for the 90mm gun and others are 14:1 or more. This produces a greater penetration for the same mass Velocity and projectile length.This is also why they have worse slanted penetration.

Where I don't see it?[url?]

My kid has been playing all the evil Play station games for several years now with his teenage older brother. Initially I was quite conscerned and repeatedly reminded them that this wasn't real....until my six year old turned to me and said "get a life dad its just a game" Mind you he's learned one of the most important lessons in life..... that to get to the next level you have to 'Kill the Boss'

Face hardened plate is not the same as hardened plate , all sides used RHA with ranges from 240 - 380 BHN these all resisted well with the increasing plate hardness blunting the projectile tip hardness unless that was more than 1.5 times the target hardness. Semi hardened plate is 400-480 BHN while hard steel is usually ~500-600 BHN. Face hardened plate was 'hard steel' on the front face and RHA on the rear, which was achieved by heat treating the one side. German test plate was , to my knowledge, 275 BHN plate but the tolerance on plate manufacture was ± 25 BHN so the plate is some times refered to as 250-300 BHN.

Well the deviation can be immence. According to Jonas Zukas the difference measured in terms of ballistic limit penetration , the maximum difference can be ± 200 m/s striking velocity , but this only covers a small % of hits. What are these variations, well OTOH they are ... Actual Muzzle velocity ± 50m/s Actual plate hardness ± 25BHN Actaul projectile hardness ± 25BHN Actual YAW this can be ± 5° Actual Plate thickness ? In the german case plates were stated thickness or over by 5mm. In the case of Cast armor the variation in actual cast thickness could be as much as ± 1cm in actual thickness [Pershing tank turret] Flaws in the projectile or plate metallurgy Individually these don't account for much but when all the ducks are in a row 1-2% of the time the difference could be ± 20-30% penetration value around a given mean data point. You understand this is seperate from the criteria that John refers to but since the Russian value is 75% and the American value is 50% that suggest atleast a 5% difference for the same target plate hardness . If the values are 250-275BHN difference thats about 5% difference [from memory].