rexford

In response to a number of posts on the Saumur Intranets site regarding the impact of HE burster size on 88mm APCBC penetration, Richard Simmie sent an e-mail to me which points out a number of important factors regarding 88mm Flak effectiveness during Barbarossa. The following is a summary of Richard's research findings. The following information is taken from Thomas Jentz's "Dreaded Threat". In 1938 the 8.8 Flak 18 was considered for firing against Ground targets, specifically armoured/concrete Pillboxes and enclosures. Armour piercing ammunition would be in service from this time onwards and consisted of the 8.8 cm Panzergranate weighing 9.5 kg (9.65kg is also stated in the text) with Armour piercing cap and ballistic cap with High explosive filler of 160 grams. Muzzle velocity is listed as 810 m/s from the L/56 barrel of the Flak 18 and Flak 36/37. During early 1942 the penetration ability was improved with the introduction of the Pzgr.39 of 10.2 kg weight with reduced HE filler of 59 grams. Muzzle velocity was 800 m/s. 30 degrees Penetration 88mm Pzgr APCBC- Early 88mm Flak Ammo 100....500.....1000.....1500......2000m 98.....93........87.......80......72mm 30 degrees Penetration 88mm Pzgr 39 APCBC- Tiger E Round 100....500.....1000.....1500....2000m 127....117.....106.......96......88mm The early Blitzkrieg up to early 1942 saw the use of the large capacity Pzgr with penetration less than 100mm at 30 degrees. In May 1941 Hitler had demanded a Tank weapon capable of penetrating 100mm at about 1500m and the improved Pzgr.39 could approach that. The 88 was retained for the Tiger I instead of installing the 75 L/70. ------------------------------------------------- In terms of 0 degree penetration, we used the slope effects in our book on WW II BALLISTICS with the 30 degree figures noted above and arrived at the following 0 degree figures for early 88mm Flak APCBC and small capacity 88mm APCBC (as used on Tiger E): 0 Degree Penetration Early 88mm Flak large HE capacity APCBC 100m...500m...1000m...1500m....2000m 123....116....108.....99.......88 0 Degree Penetration Tiger E Smaller HE Capacity 88mm APCBC 100m...500m...1000m...1500m....2000m 162....149....134.....120......109 (162).(151)..(138)...(126)....(116) (Our book) The 88mm Flak APCBC which fought the KV and T34 tanks during 1941 and early 1942 was less effective than the round fired by the Tiger E. A British firing report shows that the later 88mm Flak round with a large capacity HE burster (and 9.54 kg weight) penetrated 8% less than the Tiger E APCBC, but the above data shows about a 23% average inferiority for early 88mm Flak ammo. We believe that the early Barbarossa 88mm APCBC round not only contained a larger HE burster than the Tiger round and weighed less, but was softer steel which resulted in about an 8% drop in penetration for burster size and reduced weight, and about a 15% decrease due to less effective metal. The stories where 88mm Flak hits on KV tanks resulted in no damage may be due to nose shatter (shatter gap), which occurred with U.S. projectiles when the metal hardness fell below a given threshold and the round overpenetrated the armor resistance.

In response to a number of posts on the Saumur Intranets site regarding the impact of HE burster size on 88mm APCBC penetration, Richard Simmie sent an e-mail to me which points out a number of important factors regarding 88mm Flak effectiveness during Barbarossa. The following is a summary of Richard's research findings. The following information is taken from Thomas Jentz's "Dreaded Threat". In 1938 the 8.8 Flak 18 was considered for firing against Ground targets, specifically armoured/concrete Pillboxes and enclosures. Armour piercing ammunition would be in service from this time onwards and consisted of the 8.8 cm Panzergranate weighing 9.5 kg (9.65kg is also stated in the text) with Armour piercing cap and ballistic cap with High explosive filler of 160 grams. Muzzle velocity is listed as 810 m/s from the L/56 barrel of the Flak 18 and Flak 36/37. During early 1942 the penetration ability was improved with the introduction of the Pzgr.39 of 10.2 kg weight with reduced HE filler of 59 grams. Muzzle velocity was 800 m/s. 30 degrees Penetration 88mm Pzgr APCBC- Early 88mm Flak Ammo 100....500.....1000.....1500......2000m 98.....93........87.......80......72mm 30 degrees Penetration 88mm Pzgr 39 APCBC- Tiger E Round 100....500.....1000.....1500....2000m 127....117.....106.......96......88mm The early Blitzkrieg up to early 1942 saw the use of the large capacity Pzgr with penetration less than 100mm at 30 degrees. In May 1941 Hitler had demanded a Tank weapon capable of penetrating 100mm at about 1500m and the improved Pzgr.39 could approach that. The 88 was retained for the Tiger I instead of installing the 75 L/70. ------------------------------------------------- In terms of 0 degree penetration, we used the slope effects in our book on WW II BALLISTICS with the 30 degree figures noted above and arrived at the following 0 degree figures for early 88mm Flak APCBC and small capacity 88mm APCBC (as used on Tiger E): 0 Degree Penetration Early 88mm Flak large HE capacity APCBC 100m...500m...1000m...1500m....2000m 123....116....108.....99.......88 0 Degree Penetration Tiger E Smaller HE Capacity 88mm APCBC 100m...500m...1000m...1500m....2000m 162....149....134.....120......109 (162).(151)..(138)...(126)....(116) (Our book) The 88mm Flak APCBC which fought the KV and T34 tanks during 1941 and early 1942 was less effective than the round fired by the Tiger E. A British firing report shows that the later 88mm Flak round with a large capacity HE burster (and 9.54 kg weight) penetrated 8% less than the Tiger E APCBC, but the above data shows about a 23% average inferiority for early 88mm Flak ammo. We believe that the early Barbarossa 88mm APCBC round not only contained a larger HE burster than the Tiger round and weighed less, but was softer steel which resulted in about an 8% drop in penetration for burster size and reduced weight, and about a 15% decrease due to less effective metal. The stories where 88mm Flak hits on KV tanks resulted in no damage may be due to nose shatter (shatter gap), which occurred with U.S. projectiles when the metal hardness fell below a given threshold and the round overpenetrated the armor resistance.

There is a neat little example of the difference between firing trials and real combat in the movie GLORY. One of the recruits is on the firing range and is hitting the target bullseye just about every time, claims he was a top squirrel shooter or something back in Alabama. The officer gets really upset and demands that the troops be trained under combat conditions, so he has the great shot try to load his gun and fire while the officer is yelling and screaming and firing his pistol into the air. The recruit who blasted squirrels and targets can't even load the gun with all the commotion, let alone get out os many shots per minute or even hope to hit a non-threatening target. The CM model catches the guys who melt when the rubber hits the road, from green to elite. But maybe it underestimates the Michael Wittmann's and Bobby Woll's and the Canadian who could hit a tiny area on the Panther mantlet and send a round down on the hull crew. These guys performed BETTER under fire than the others did on the training grounds. This is the point of the thread, a few really good shooters and commanders do much of the killing, the others are along for the ride or do some flank protection.

The original post shows that Tiger gunnery was not a constant high quality, but appears to have varied from one extreme to the other, just like everyone else. However, the fellow who couldn't hit tanks on the fly had no problem dropping HE rounds close to trucks, guns and infantry. So Tiger gunnery against "soft" targets appears uniformly good from the few stories that are available. Most readings of Tiger exploits show a remarkable ability to wipe out the soft targets, ending with a terrific count of knocked out guns, trucks and infantry. While Tiger HE muzzle velocity (810 m/s) is very high and increases ground dispersion of HE rounds, the great effectiveness against soft targets suggests that Tigers were consistently hitting near the soft targets, which infers great gunnery and range estimation. Why the difference between T34 and truck/gun/infantry accuracy? Trucks and infantry don't fire big rounds at tanks, and artillery and 45mm anti-tank guns aren't much of a threat most of the time (they are aimed high in the air for artillery purposes). So maybe it is psychological. The bottom line of the two Tiger crewman stories is that a good Tiger could attain an accuracy well above what is normally considered to be possible, even assuming 10% or 5% average range estimation error. The best Tiger crews were heads above the average. It is said that Sergeant York could shoot instinctively well, like he was born to shoot which gave him an advantage. The best outdo the others by significant margins, and sometime don't miss much. Like Wittman in a StuG IIIA who knocked out T34's one after the other with single aimed shots: nerves of steel and an eye to match on his and the gunners part.

Site at http://www.panzer-vi.fsnet.co.uk/talesmenu.html offers interviews with Tiger crewmen, and quite a bit is said about accuracy. In what appears to be his first combat, Bobby Woll seems to knock out 22 T34 with 25 shots, including kills at 1500m. In Joachim Scholl's case, the gunner can't hit much of anything despite about 40 shots at various real and semi-real targets. Eventually, the accuracy improves on long distance tries and hits become more regular. Both sides of Tiger gunnery, absolute best and somewhat difficult. 88% accuracy at what appears to be 500m to 1500m range. The good ones were really good, and may have exceeded the estimates provided by ballistics analysis.

Thanks for all the good replies. Just what I was looking for.

When playing CM, do players adher to historical proportions of Fireflies per troop, such as one Firefly for every three 75mm Sherman up to a certain date, and then two Fireflies per troop (with two 75mm Shermans) between certain dates as Fireflies become more common (or 75mm Shermans become cannon fodder). Do players also attempt to maneuver tanks as a troop, keeping them together for tactical purposes? When we play CM we try to organize and maintain troop identify and proportions, and we were wondering what aproach others follow. Thanks. P.S. We noticed that German gunners seem to automatically "see and find" the Firefly the moment it comes into view. Would ALL of the Germans be on alert to spot that tank and announce it to the world? It is not obvious that a Firefly and several 75mm Shermans facing a PzKpfw IVH group head-on, at 500m, would have the Firefly stand out to am obvious degree. From what we have read the Fireflies would sometimes hide in the background and come out to play as soon as the Germans started a firefight that the 75mm guns weren't up to. [ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

The HE burster size can have a fairly large influence on penetration performance, as large capacity burster in Flak 36 ammo decreased penetration by about -8%. The 88mm Flak 36 APCBC round fired by the British in a test was 9.6 kg in weight and had a 157 gram HE burster. This appears to be the Pzgr 8.8cm projectile. Mark Diehl's tables from AFV-G2 show a Pzgr 39 APCBC projectile for the Tiger gun with 10 kg weight and 114 gram HE burster. Although we have not been able to find a smaller HE burster weight than 114 grams for Tiger weapon, there is a Pzgr Patr 41 round that is listed for the Flak 36 which has a 30 gram (estimated) burster. Did the Tiger 88 fire the Pzgr Patr 41, how common was that ammo and when did it first appear? Thanks.

Good material on 75L46 ATG. 75mm L48 tank gun had very large constant aim dispersion, so shots would vary quite a bit from trajectory (high and low, left and right). 75mm L46 anti-tank gun might vary by even greater amounts: 88L56 Flak was much less accurate than Tiger 88 due to ground mount having significantly greater shot scatter. Doesn't say what the targets were: T34 or KV-I. Were targets partially obscured by ground folds so target area was reduced in size? Were ATG crews under attack from HE rounds while they fired, which could affect accuracy. How experienced was ATG crew, and did it suffer casualties? Since it was first experience with 75L46 at front, probably after using 50L60 or 37L45 ATG, it might be natural for crews to have trouble with bracketing, rate of fire and with a whole lot of others factors that can mess up accuracy. It could be like Dirty Harry going from his magnum revolver to a derringer. There are many factors that surround the interpretation of single combat event results, although it took 88L56 Flak units 10 shots per kill against T34 at 2000m. 6-12 shots per kill at 1000m-1500m for 75L46 ATG looks consistent with 88 Flak report. [ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

I thought the point was that a few Tigers did an extraordinarily high percentage of the killing, and the others rode the gravy train without pulling their weight. The conclusion to be drawn from the preceding posts is that a few tanks should get the very highest hit probability that can be ballistically justified, and the rest get the regular CM treatment. And that 2000m plus accuracy for the very gifted and experienced should be high enough at long range to regularly tear apart the enemy masses. By the way, at Rowno one Michael Wittmann, in a StuG III (short barrel 75mm), was able to knock out a bunch of T34 with single shots aimed at the turret ring, which was accomplished in a few cases against the front of a T34! So "aces" appear to justify remarkably high hit percentages at long and short range (my thanks to Jeff Duquette for bringing the Wittmann StuG anecdotes up some time ago). This "average kills per Tiger" thing just supports the overall line of thought that was presupposed early on, a few kill like crazy and the rest fire a few shots wildly or sit around and do sentry duty. Guys like Wittmann will be terrors at all ranges and in just about anything. POSTSCRIPT How about that Canadian guy who made an art of killing Panthers frontally by bouncing a round off the mantlet bottom so it would hit and kill one of the hull crew? If we look at the number of Panthers that were killed on frontal shots by Shermans, what percentage does that Canadian get with his 18 or so knock-outs? Or what about the Russians, in two 75mm armed Shermans, where the first tank would target and break a Tiger track so the moving vehicle would rotate and offer a flank shot to the second Sherman? How many Russians had the nerve to try that technique even after it became famous? How many crews could face a Tiger and hit the tracks for a break while the panzer headed towards them? The few, the proud, the effective. [ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

80mm @ 55° armor resists 90mm HVAP like a 278mm thick vertical plate. Based on U.S. data 90mm HVAP penetrates 278mm of vertical plate at 500m. 90mm APCBC from M36 or Pershing is useless against 80mm at 55°, even if plate is flawed. Jagdpanther should be more resistant than a Panther to frontal attacks by Pershings and M36's, due to absence of relatively weak mantlet and turret front. Pershing glacis is 102mm cast at 46°, so it resists 88L71 like 180mm of rolled vertical plate (my figure includes cast deficiency to rolled armor, something CM may not consider). 88L71 APCBC pierces 180mm vertical rolled plate at 1850m. Pershing also has 102mm cast at 20° at top center of glacis, REALLY VULNERABLE!

Some comments on previous posts: 1. JgPz IV 75L48 fires at 750 m/s, only the 75L46 anti-tank gun fired at 790 m/s. 2. How does Churchill 95mm HEAT destroy Panthers with frontal hits, it seems that one would have to hit the turret or lower front hull. British penetration data indicates 127mm at 0°, Panther glacis (80 @ 55°) equals 139 @ 0° against HEAT. Panther nose armor is only 105 @ 0° against HEAT. 3. Band of Brothers had a Jagdpanther attack the paratroopers in conjunction with StuG III and German para's, and as soon as the 75mm armed Shermans broke through the woods and starting lobbing HE the Jagdpanther seemed to back up and run for safety. Can't remember if any Shermans felt the bite of the 88L71 before the Germans ran back to their starting point. One would think that as soon as a Sherman was blown away by a blistering 88L71 round, or the Americans realized what was facing them, they would have bailed. I guess momentum and the threat of envelopment convinced the Jagdpanther crew and the rest of the German force to retreat.

For 88L71 APCBC vs. 75.87mm at 55°, test velocity is 2882 fps for 50% success. Our book relates that armor and angle to 185mm at 0° resistance, which would be penetrated by 88L71 at 1680m. British test velocity of 2882 fps against 75.87mm/55° is associated with 1300m range. The disparity between theoretical and actual penetration range in the above case is due to wide variations in armor plate resistance, where plate/projectile combination limited 88L71 penetration to a shorter range than normal. Due to greater resistance than average, 88L71 APCBC needed 195mm penetration to defeat 185mm resistance on half the hits (plate resistance was 5.4% higher than average).

Thanks to excellent research efforts by Jeff Duquette, who found one of the key firing test resports for WW II ammo performance, we just received a British firing test report from WW II where German rounds were fired at 45° and 55° sloped plates: 88L71 APCBC penetrates 80.8mm @ 55° at 2965 fps 75L48 APCBC penetrates 57.8mm @ 55° at 2440 fps Our book relates an 88L71 hit on 80.8mm/55° to 201mm at 0° resistance, which 88L71 penetrates at 1094m. Estimated impact velocity at 1094m is 2929 fps, so data in our book closely matches actual British test for 88L71 (2929 vs 2965). 75mm hit on 57.8mm/55° is equivalent to 137mm at 0°, which 75L48 penetrates at 33m. Velocity at 33m is 2446 fps, very close to British result (2446 vs 2440). British test uses large HE filler cavity 88L56 round, which appears to penetrate alot less armor than Tiger ammo (which was small capacity). Large capacity 88L56 ammo would be used by 88mm Flak prior to Tiger introduction, based on our research (with further reports welcome as we do not claim finality on this issue). Report is from British Public Records Office (PRO), where it is held, and is WO 194/749. There are many other test results including 17 pounder APCBC against 25mm at 75° armor, which is penetrated at about the same velocity that our book estimates. We just started to analyze the data. British report comments on wide variations in plate resistance which are not related to armor hardness, and our initial review indicates that standard deviation is about 5%. If a round has 5% more penetration than armor resistance it will succeed on about 84% of hits, and 10% greater penetration succeeds on about 98% of hits. A hit where penetration is 5% less than armor resistance will succeed about 16% of time. [ 10-05-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

Recon by fire is a common tactic where enemy may be hiding and you want to rattle their cage and obtain some motion or return fire. The initial use of ammo for recon by fire does not count towards accuracy since it not aimed fired for K-O purposes, per se. Tanks that are destroyed or knocked out and lost also cost ammunition. At Kasserine Pass, U.S. troops held their rifles over the trenches and fired wildly hoping to do something without coming into harms way (story from a local who was there or close to Nebelwerfer hits). It is possible that a few tanks did most of the killing and the rest stood around and fired off a few rounds to seem as if they in the thick of things. My favorite movie, The Unforgiven with The Man, El Hombre, Clint Eastwood, has a good explanation of how one man outshoots a group. This explanation may also apply to tank warfare. As Clint explained, one figures out who is the most likely to shoot straight and you get them first. The others will be so scared once the shooting starts they will lift their guns and fire away without aiming. Those you pick off later on after the main threats are done away with. If one is lucky they can get the straight shooters without being hit, and then pick off the scare-dee-cats at leisure. Oh, by the way, how many rounds were spent on practice fire or used to align gun and sights. How many 88 rounds went to the bottom of the Med Sea after a British ship or plane hit a cargo run bound for North Africa. In Barkmann's Corner, the Panther continues to put rounds in the knocked out Shermans after they are disabled so they will burn.

Actual reports from many different sources suggest that tank shots at 2000m or greater did occur, and hits were generated. We have pictures of an early IS-2 that was pierced by a Nashorn at over 2000m. The main question is how many shots to get those 2000m+ kills, and what kind of accuracy per shot. The statistics I provided earlier in the post are consistent with the British experience firing from a Tiger using bracketing and 25% average range estimation error. For really good crews (from the commander who estimates range and chooses target, to the gunner who has to line up gun with a tiny visual target, and to those responsible for keeping the gun and sights in top condition), hit probabilities beyond 2000m are not zero.

The German penetration drawings and graphs were based on some assumptions that were not valid in the field. T34 front hull and turret armor was extremely hard and brittle, and could lose 25% or more of its resistance when hit by 75mm or larger ammo. Sherman front hull armor was usually flawed, was often cast and usually had a large number of weak weld lines for the multi-piece welded glacis. Calculated penetration ranges do not consider cast armor, flaws, hard brittle overmatched plate, etc. We compared German penetration data to the published penetration ranges, and all armor is assumed to be roughly equal to German penetration test plate. Not true. In actual practice, T34 and Sherman armor would be penetrated well beyond the calculated ranges that show up on those German publications and tanker aids. Office calculations that assume no one shoots at over 2000m could also be far different from what tankers actually practiced, especially if the tank crew had good luck at long range shooting, felt confident and there was a real benefit to getting kills at that range compared to the expected ammo expenditure. Just cause penetration range data is published doesn't mean it matches reality. [ 10-02-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]

What can a Tiger crew see at 2000m and 3000m? With 2.5x magnification, a 2m x 2m target would appear to be: 0.03" high and wide at 2000m 0.02" high and wide at 3000m With 5x magnification, Tiger I observed target size is twice as large. The computer model assumes 2.5x magnification, so Tigers, Panthers, Tiger II's and JagdPanther accuracy would be boosted at the longer ranges by virtue of a larger target on the sight. The model assumes that the target stands out to some degree against the background and has the characteristics of German gun sight optics, which would lead to accuracy decreases for most American gun sights in reduced light conditions. The computer model includes penalties for inability to precisely aim at the center of target as range increases. Note also how important care of the gun becomes at long range, everything must be well aligned and maintained to hit at 2000m and 3000m range given a fairly small observed target. How many crews could maintain their weapons, as well as their nerves, for high accuracy at 2000m and 3000m? Not everybody, but certainly quite a few.

Past posts have clearly illustrated how excitement and fear can freeze guns crews, or lead to wild eyed mistakes and way out misses. But the cool clear headed accuracy of professionals has also been displayed, such as the M18 commander who thought out the ballistics issues "by the book" and knocked out German tanks, one after the other, at 2000 yards. What can a careful, well trained pro do with an 88L56 tank gun? We have a computer program that bases first shot accuracy on errors such as range estimation and ability to zero in on the center of the observed target, and does NOT crank in "fear", "excitement" and "just plain dumb" factors. Follow-up misses use bracketing technique to zero in, and the assumption is crews with better range estimation talents are also better at bracketing. Here is what a professional Tiger tank crew could do against a 2m x 2m target (rolling terrain blocks bottom of vehicle from view): 10% AVERAGE RANGE ESTIMATION ERROR (This is elite type unit) 500m: 100% probability on all shots 1000m: 65% on first shot, 85% on second, 95% on third 2000m: 14% on first shot, 38% on second, 47% on third, 60% on fourth, 65% on fifth 3000m: 3% on first shot, 14% on second, 23% on third, 24% on fourth, 28% on fifth 25% AVERAGE RANGE ESTIMATION ERROR (this is average ability for WW II crew) 500m: 85% on first shot, 95% on second, 100% on third 1000m: 30% on first shot, 55% on second, 70% on third, 75% on fourth, 80% on fifth 2000m: 4% on first shot, 17% on second, 23% on third, 33% on fourth and fifth 3000m: 3% on first shot, 6% on second, 9% on third, 13% on fourth and fifth 5% AVERAGE RANGE ESTIMATION ERROR (range finder use, ranges marked in field or on maps by defensive units, very best crews) 500m: 100% all shots 1000m: 85% on first shot, 100% afterwards 2000m: 28% on first shot, 57% on second, 65% on third, 70% on fourth, 75% on fifth 3000m: 7% on first shot, 21% on second, 27% on third, 32% on fourth, 36% on third Note that tanks with 5% and 10% average range estimation errors, which are the Michael Wittmann types with nerves of steel, can, with a few shots at a target, attain close to 100% accuracy at 500m and 65% to 75% accuracy at 2000m. Just as importantly, common everyday crews (25% average ranging error) who go about their business carefully can score 85% accuracy at 500m on the first shot against a partially obscured target. Jeff's comment about a few tanks doing most of the killing seems right on the mark. Reports on Tiger performance usually center about a few tanks in a unit doing most of the kills, with little or nothing from the others. It is probable that the best Tigers not only shot more accurately but fired more often. 3000m kills within a few shots by Tiger tanks are possible based on the computer analysis, and would be even more likely by the higher velocity Panther, Nashorn and Tiger II weapons (plus Panther 75mm has less dispersion than Tiger 88L56).

At 3000m range firing 88L56 APCBC, a small error in range estimation results in a fairly large miss. The TigerFibel seems to be a little optimistic at times. At 3000m range, 88L56 APCBC is moving at 546 m/s, and it takes about 4.5 seconds for the round to reach the target. If the range estimate is off by 25m, the shot misses the aim point by a vertical distance of 0.84m (high or low). Since the round deviates vertically due to constant aim dispersion, a 25m range estimate error at 3000m results in about 60% accuracy. If the average range estimate is in error by 8% (TigerFibel expects crews to estimate at less than 10% error, which is very good compared to 17% to 25% for British anti-tank gun crews on proving grounds), first shot at 3000m will be off by about 120m with 4% error. Say one shot long, then one short, then bring brackets onto target, and we have quite a few shots if crew starts at 4% error. If range estimation error at 3000m is over 10% average, it may take many shots to hit. Actual data from 88mmL56 Flak against T34 at 2000m resulted in 10 shots per kill.

The 88L56 Flak had a greater constant aim dispersion pattern than the Tiger 88L56, which may be due to differences between tank mounted gun and that shaky thing the Flak used. There is a German account of a battle with T34's (and maybe some KV-I) at 2000m or so, where the kills and shots were added up after the battle. We figured 3, maybe 4 shots per T34/KV-I kill. TEN SHOTS PER KILL! Germans on defensive where they should have known the approximate ranges based on map studies, and maybe 88 had range finders to get closer on first shot and hit faster. Odd things happen in real life that don't occur in calculations, as we have been shown many times. Statistics also permit lots of misses at 300m to 500m that shouldn't occur if trajectory equations held true. Last week I measured the distance to a tree from a runway end with another fellow, and this week it turns out we were wrong. People think they have measured correctly, or aimed at the center of the Sherman, and they aren't even close. Fatigue can cloud men's minds. Fellows in England who served in tanker units have seen misses that defy logic during practice shoots. In fact, with an enemy at 300m you are staring down their barrel, so to speak, which introduces the expectation of return fire. Maybe the shot is hurried before the gun has really centered on the target, or one sets the range for 1500m instead of 500m. It happens. Myth in Nord Afrika was that if the first 88 shot missed, the second wouldn't, and Matilda tankers reportedly (?) would sometimes bail after the first miss. Sounds a bit like hype to me. Jentz' books have a report where French tanks in ambush didn't even fire at advancing panzers, and the Germans swept the French tanks away. Lower per shot accuracy can also model higher accuracy but fewer shots per minute, which can occur if the gun crew chief freezes at the wrong moment.

Information provided by Lawrence Sims on AFV News forum, from various sources, indicates that face-hardening of Panther armor stopped during October 1943, which suggests that Panther A and G models did not use face-hardened armor. October 1943 date may coinside with end of Panther D run, based on our research. Americans in Europe reported that face-hardened armor use was found on Panthers, but not all. As face-hardened armor is much more vulnerable to Sherman 75mm APCBC than homogenous armor, and provides some added resistance against uncapped Russian ammo, this issue is very important to us "grogs", and to CM2 development. We would be interested in comments, input and information regarding this issue. Thank you.

I didn't say fix or do something, and I won't be able to pin myself down on any points either. But it is refreshing to win an argument and to have USERNAME agree that I was correct, even if I was also wrong. My plan from the beginning. Sneaky, huh?

But wait till I start to argue with myself, even USERNAME won't want to get in the middle.

6 pdr APCBC penetration stats against homogeneous and face-hardened armor at 100, 500 and 1000 meter range: 2600 fps muzzle velocity L45 gun: 107, 96, 84 homogeneous 112, 102, 91 face-hardened 2725 fps muzzle velocity L52 gun: 115, 103, 90 homogeneous 119, 109, 97 face-hardened 6 pdr AP ammo penetration: 2700 fps muzzle velocity L45 gun: 117, 97, 77 homogeneous 93, 72, 53 face-hardened 2830 fps muzzle velocity L45 gun: 128, 105, 83 homogeneous 100, 78, 57 face-hardened 2950 fps muzzle velocity L52 gun: 135, 112, 89 homogeneous 104, 82, 61 face-hardened