Jump to content

Tiger Armor Issue


Recommended Posts

Vanir, those numbers with partial penetrations added in are what I was looking for when I first saw shift8's test results.. it does look like there doesn't appear to be much wrong with the game at this point... and you have a larger sample size too which helps.  Thanks for posting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is your primary concern then I have some good news: You're wrong! :lol: Shatter gap is barely even in the game from what I can tell.

 

M4A3 Sherman 76 vs Tiger I late @ 500m (sample size 325)

Full penetration: 11%

Partial Penetrations: 63%

Spalling: 22%

No Effect: 4%

 

Pz IV ausf H vs Tiger I late @ 750m (sample size 328)

Full penetration: 16%

Partial penetration: 57%

Spalling: 23%

No effect: 3%

 

Only hits on the driver plate were counted (the "Superstructure Front Hull" in-game). The Tigers were angled about 10° away from the shooters in order to match Rexfords shatter gap criteria.

 

This is a very good apples to apples comparison. The Sherman's penetration at 500 meters is identical to the Pz IV's penetration at 750 meters (116mm). They also use the same shell type (APCBC with HE burster) and have virtually the same diameter.

 

If you look at the percentage of hits that were penetrations of some type between the two guns they are identical (73.5% and 73.8%). Spalling and no effect ratios are also identical. The only significant difference is that a larger percentage of Pz IV penetrations are full rather than partial, but the difference is small, 5% of total hits.

 

So contrary to claims that shatter gap modeling in the game is "severe" or "extreme" it appears to be very subdued, to the point of near-irrelevance unless there are other conditions under which it is more pronounced.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0k16bdi28leb03k/Pz%20IV%20750m%20shatter%20001.bts?dl=0

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjndw7soxkdzd6f/Sherman76%20500m%20shatter.bts?dl=0

Huh? Those numbers arent that much diferent from than what I posted........

 

You cant count a PP as a penetration......The round hasn't gone through the armor-----just because it can cause damage does not matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? Those numbers arent that much diferent from than what I posted........

 

You cant count a PP as a penetration......The round hasn't gone through the armor-----just because it can cause damage does not matter. 

 

I think you will find most disagree with you.. I for one think any penetration regardless of degree or damage inflicted is a penetration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you will find most disagree with you.. I for one think any penetration regardless of degree or damage inflicted is a penetration.

Oh come now. 

 

Just because the word is in there does not mean they are the same. A penetration passes through the armor, and a PP only makes it part of the way through(and therefore is not really a PP, its is just a shell that has become lodged). Can a PP be effective at killing a tank? Sure... but thats not relevant to a ballistics discussion. This thread is not about general combat effectiveness. 

 

A PP would not be a valid P by any nations criteria, so it does nothing to address the failures with regard to 76mm performance based on penetration tables. They simply didnt count rounds that didnt make it through, no matter what after effects a big bulge in the inside might have caused. (The Americans even define PP in one test, I think firing test one at isigny, where they say it is a bulge on this inside that light does not pass through--meaning the plate is not breached.)

 

So in summary, a Partial Penetration is NOT a breach in the tanks armor, it is just referring to the round making it PART of the way through the plate---BUT NOT actually through it..........hence what we have actual penetrations for! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come now. 

 

Just because the word is in there does not mean they are the same. A penetration passes through the armor, and a PP only makes it part of the way through(and therefore is not really a PP, its is just a shell that has become lodged). Can a PP be effective at killing a tank? Sure... but thats not relevant to a ballistics discussion. This thread is not about general combat effectiveness. 

 

A PP would not be a valid P by any nations criteria, so it does nothing to address the failures with regard to 76mm performance based on penetration tables. They simply didnt count rounds that didnt make it through, no matter what after effects a big bulge in the inside might have caused. (The Americans even define PP in one test, I think firing test one at isigny, where they say it is a bulge on this inside that light does not pass through--meaning the plate is not breached.)

 

So in summary, a Partial Penetration is NOT a breach in the tanks armor, it is just referring to the round making it PART of the way through the plate---BUT NOT actually through it..........hence what we have actual penetrations for! :)

Okay, let's just eliminate partial penetrations from the equation.  What do you think of the performance of the US 76mm as compared to the German 75mm?  Do you think they are both in error?  Do you think shatter gap is being applied to the German ammunition?  If not then what do you think is the cause for the difference between the in game performance of both guns and your expectations because up to this point your focus has exclusively been on shatter gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK, partial penetration in CM is not simply deformation of the interior plate. That is probably better encompassed by "hit" plus "spalling" in game, even though all "hits" result in ricochets (you'll note they sometimes deflect in improbable directions, like straight back). Partial penetration just means it wasn't a 100% clean penetration with the projectile passing through the armor intact.

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK, partial penetration in CM is not simply deformation of the interior plate. That is probably better encompassed by "hit" plus "spalling" in game, even though all "hits" result in ricochets (you'll note they sometimes deflect in improbable directions, like straight back). Partial penetration just means it wasn't a 100% clean penetration with the projectile passing through the armor intact.

No that is not what it means. Spalling is just mild flaking on the inside of the armor. A Partial penetration could cause VERY severe "spalling" such as large chunks of plate flying through the tank in a manner similar to what a HESH rounds tries to do on purpose. 

 

I mean seriously people, If you start add PP's as "penetrations in general" then we have some very weird things going on in this game. 75mm M3 Penetrating PZ4 80mm at 1500m? And thats just the first think I can think of, PP does not = P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we can certainly have a "what does partial penetration mean" debate - I'm cool with watching that :)  but I think the information that Vanir Ausf B posted goes a long way to saying that there is not a problem with some excessive shatter being modelled in game.  So, does that put your concern over the modelling of shatter in game to rest.  I am curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No that is not what it means. Spalling is just mild flaking on the inside of the armor. A Partial penetration could cause VERY severe "spalling" such as large chunks of plate flying through the tank in a manner similar to what a HESH rounds tries to do on purpose. 

 

I mean seriously people, If you start add PP's as "penetrations in general" then we have some very weird things going on in this game. 75mm M3 Penetrating PZ4 80mm at 1500m? And thats just the first think I can think of, PP does not = P

 

This post (with a quote from Charles) has some explanation for Sherman v Pz-IV, might help.

 

Good luck with your crusade Shift8, seriously I hope you find peace of mind in regards to this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of damage from a Partial Penetration is not the issue here - the point is - all the Partial Penetrations ( 55-65% ) did not shatter !

 

So your complaint that CM overmodels "shatter gap" is addressed :)

Just because the Partially penetrated does by no means imply they did not shatter. As Rexford details, Shatter can STILL penetrate, if the penetration to armor ratio is higher. Thats why, according to him, you get the gap. As close range it succeeds, then fails at medium, then succeeds again. Not every Shatter failure means the round blew up into confetti on impact. The Shatter is caused by high nose forces due to armor being pushed out of the way too rapidly. The Shatter can very well occur more often than not after the round has penetrated a certain amount into the armor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post (with a quote from Charles) has some explanation for Sherman v Pz-IV, might help.

 

Good luck with your crusade Shift8, seriously I hope you find peace of mind in regards to this subject.

Im not sure I get what in this thread to help me. The part you sent seems to have more to do with the PAnzer gun, not the Shermans. Which BTW, I see no issue with the way its modeled right now, but maybe it was changed since that thread? I dont know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure I get what in this thread to help me. The part you sent seems to have more to do with the PAnzer gun, not the Shermans. Which BTW, I see no issue with the way its modeled right now, but maybe it was changed since that thread? I dont know. 

Okay, so if you think the 75mm gun on the Panzer IV is just fine, and if the performance of the 75mm matches the performance of the 76mm per the test run by Vanir, then please explain to us what the issue is that you have with the 76mm gun.  At this point in time testing has shown that they act the same in game so if there is something wrong with the 76mm then there must be a similar error with the 75mm.  In order to remain credible you either need to admit that perhaps your assumptions were in error or you need to explain why both guns have values that don't match your expectations.  Saying that the 75mm is fine but the 76mm is in error when their performance is the same is an irrational position to maintain unless you can give us a compelling reason to doubt the performance of both weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, were talking about two different tanks shooting at two different targets. SO there might be problem with the Sherman vs Tiger and Pz4 vs Tiger, but not Sherman vs Pz4. Shatter gap only occurs under certain Armor to penetration ratios. I have no idea why the 75mm gun KwK 48 is having the same problems with the Tiger, since it is not supposed to be susceptible to shatter gap. 

 

But this hardly puts the issue squarely with me. For people defending shatter, then we have a problem EITHER way. 

 

The way I see it is this,

 

1. Both guns fail against the Tiger. 

 

2. So either shatter is effecting both, which both parties would probably disagree with. 

 

3. Or Shatter isnt a thing, and we have a problem where both guns are failing despite all indications that they should--esp the KwK 48 since its a bit more powerful at 500m. 

 

So clearly SOMETHING is going on there. MAYBE shatter is the culprit. Either way IMO something isnt right here with these guns performance vs the Tiger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After considerable testing in CMBN, I have determined (as many here already are aware) that the Tiger deflects almost all 76mm hits from the front at ranges well within the penetration zone for the 76mm gun at low obliquity at ranges of 500 to 1000m.

 

Partial penetrations are NOT DEFLECTIONS! Marginal penetrations that cause armor spalling are NOT DEFLECTIONS!

 

M4A3 Sherman 76 vs Tiger I late @ 500m (sample size 325)

Full Penetration: 11%

Partial Penetrations: 63%

Spalling: 22%

No Effect: 4%

 

LOOK! 74% penetration rate! 22% marginal penetration rate! Only 4% of shots fired deflected!

How does that count as 'almost all'? It actually looks like 'almost none'!

Your entire point was proven wrong pages ago, yet you still persist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vanir was able to recreate your results. Partial pens should be counted, 3 out of every 10 partial pen on front hull (at 100, 300, 500 and 1000m) gave me catastrophic kills.

I'm significantly less worried now ;)

Edit: by the by, shots that bounced off the front hull had a habit of bouncing into the drivers housing. Im actually impressed at the 76s ability to get debilitating hits at ranges in excess of 800 m.

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, were talking about two different tanks shooting at two different targets. SO there might be problem with the Sherman vs Tiger and Pz4 vs Tiger, but not Sherman vs Pz4. Shatter gap only occurs under certain Armor to penetration ratios. I have no idea why the 75mm gun KwK 48 is having the same problems with the Tiger, since it is not supposed to be susceptible to shatter gap. 

 

But this hardly puts the issue squarely with me. For people defending shatter, then we have a problem EITHER way. 

 

The way I see it is this,

 

1. Both guns fail against the Tiger. 

 

2. So either shatter is effecting both, which both parties would probably disagree with. 

 

3. Or Shatter isnt a thing, and we have a problem where both guns are failing despite all indications that they should--esp the KwK 48 since its a bit more powerful at 500m. 

 

So clearly SOMETHING is going on there. MAYBE shatter is the culprit. Either way IMO something isnt right here with these guns performance vs the Tiger. 

Well then perhaps a test could be conducted against different types of target tanks to see if the two guns perform as expected against other vehicles.  That way a determination could be made as to whether the issue is related to the guns or if the issue is related to the armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vanir was able to recreate your results. Partial pens should be counted, 3 out of every 10 partial pen on front hull (at 100, 300, 500 and 1000m) gave me catastrophic kills.

I'm significantly less worried now ;)

Edit: by the by, shots that bounced off the front hull had a habit of bouncing into the drivers housing. Im actually impressed at the 76s ability to get debilitating hits at ranges in excess of 800 m.

The nature of the damage is totally irrelevant. Seriously I dont know what you guys on about with this. A Partial Penetration has NOT made it through the plate, and while it may cause damage, it does NOT meet the penetration criteria of the United States or any other nations. Which means that when we are determining if the guns are performing right ballistics, you CANT count PP's, because if anyone were testing this IRL, PP's would NOT be counted. That is just the fact of the matter. Whether or not a Sherman can pulverize a Tiger into submission is not what is being debated. 

 

For example, at 500m, M62 APCBC penetrated 115mm of plate @ 0. According to US penetration criteria, that means that on 50% of hits, the the projectile passed completely through the plate. It didnt get stuck in it, it wasnt lodged, they didnt count spalling, bulges or whatnot. Only projectiles that made it through the armor more or less in one piece. Similar standards are for the KwK and Russian tests of the US 76mm. 

 

Honestly, the best explanation Ive seen so far is Vanir's suggestion that the Tiger's armor was of higher BHN, which might make positive difference for the armor so long as its below 375BHN. WW2BnG however stated that the Tiger armor resisted like normal plate in most tests, despite the somewhat higher hardness. Who knows. I dont know if that is historically accurate or not, but given that the KwK is also failing, its seems plausible. 

Edited by shift8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then perhaps a test could be conducted against different types of target tanks to see if the two guns perform as expected against other vehicles.  That way a determination could be made as to whether the issue is related to the guns or if the issue is related to the armor.

Thats not a bad idea, but what has roughly 100mm of armor that isnt a Tiger, and is somewhat flat in nature? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what to say at this point. I understand your goal-lines but its starkly different from everyone else - who are using a far more practical baseline of what degrades the tank's combat performance. Its all well and good to say you are only counting 'clean penetrations' but when everyone is observing that 'settling for less' in the form of a partial-penetration still yields the desired results (in at least 30 percent of my tests of a 400 sample size - catastrophic kills), then arguing that the "76 is less effective than it should be" is based on a shaky premise at best. If it can knock out enemy armor within a handful of shots at excessive ranges despite the lack of clean penetrations then its sufficient to conclude that the 76 is good enough. I also think its counter intuitive to be barking on about your sources when others have pointed out notable issues with your interpretation of said sources and have even given their own sources to back up their criticisms. 

 

Really now. I enjoy the entire premise of the thread and the conversation you've generated but you've been responding to everyone with empty exasperation and snark for simple suggestions about your methodology.

 

In short, of all the flavors, you chose to cook with salt.

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...