Tiger Armor Issue

[ASL Veteran]

Having read this entire thread, I can conclusively say there is a lot more salt pouring toward shift8 than there is emanating from him.

Perhaps.  However, he really needs to understand that he is now effectively saying that the entire model that the game uses for armor penetration is in error.  If the expectation is that someone is going to come onto this forum, start a thread, toss out a few things and have an expectation that Charles is going to discount everything that he has done for the last fifteen years and suddenly say 'You're right, I need to re do the entire penetration model for the game' is probably not dealing with reality as it currently is.  If anyone wants the entire way the game is calculating armor penetration to change they are probably going to need to provide some very compelling evidence, up to and perhaps including various tables and calculations that are the equivalent of what Rexford has published.  Shift8 has already discounted the expertise of apparently well regarded individuals on a forum dedicated to armor penetration.  Why would Charles feel compelled to put any credence into what Shift8 says on this forum.  Is Shift8 published?  Does Shift8 work for the defense department?  Does Shift8 do any original research on this topic?  What are Shift8's credentials exactly or does he just read a few books and count himself an expert?  I don't know the answer to that - maybe he is a renowned expert in the field.

 

I'm not trying to be hard on the guy.  I'm just trying to spell out reality.  Charles relies on research conducted by recognized experts in the field - which includes Rexford.  Shift8 seems to have a dim view of Rexford's work, but really, what is Shift8's qualifications to pontificate on Rexford's work in the first place?  Unless Shift8 can point to his published work and show where all of CM's mistakes are then he's really just tilting at windmills here since Charles is just going to say 'Shift8?  Who is he and why should I care what he thinks?'  Reading a book somewhere doesn't make someone an expert because it should be obvious that what Charles has put into the game is much more complicated than a simple penetration table.  That is, unless Shift8 stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!

 

I don't know Shift8 and I'm not trying to bust the guy's balls, but if you want to change the entire way armored combat is done in the game it will require extraordinary evidence.  Saying 'something is wrong but I don't know what' isn't going to change a thing.  That's reality.

Edited July 24, 2015 by ASL Veteran

[shift8]

Perhaps.  However, he really needs to understand that he is now effectively saying that the entire model that the game uses for armor penetration is in error.  If the expectation is that someone is going to come onto this forum, start a thread, toss out a few things and have an expectation that Charles is going to discount everything that he has done for the last fifteen years and suddenly say 'You're right, I need to re do the entire penetration model for the game' is probably not dealing with reality as it currently is.  If anyone wants the entire way the game is calculating armor penetration to change they are probably going to need to provide some very compelling evidence, up to and perhaps including various tables and calculations that are the equivalent of what Rexford has published.  Shift8 has already discounted the expertise of apparently well regarded individuals on a forum dedicated to armor penetration.  Why would Charles feel compelled to put any credence into what Shift8 says on this forum.  Is Shift8 published?  Does Shift8 work for the defense department?  Does Shift8 do any original research on this topic?  What are Shift8's credentials exactly or does he just read a few books and count himself an expert?  I don't know the answer to that - maybe he is a renowned expert in the field.

 

I'm not trying to be hard on the guy.  I'm just trying to spell out reality.  Charles relies on research conducted by recognized experts in the field - which includes Rexford.  Shift8 seems to have a dim view of Rexford's work, but really, what is Shift8's qualifications to pontificate on Rexford's work in the first place?  Unless Shift8 can point to his published work and show where all of CM's mistakes are then he's really just tilting at windmills here since Charles is just going to say 'Shift8?  Who is he and why should I care what he thinks?'  Reading a book somewhere doesn't make someone an expert because it should be obvious that what Charles has put into the game is much more complicated than a simple penetration table.  That is, unless Shift8 stayed at a Holiday Inn last night!

 

I don't know Shift8 and I'm not trying to bust the guy's balls, but if you want to change the entire way armored combat is done in the game it will require extraordinary evidence.  Saying 'something is wrong but I don't know what' isn't going to change a thing.  That's reality.

I dont know why you think Im throwing out CMBN pen mechanics. They are based in large part on Rexford and Livingstons WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, a book that I consider to be the gospel word when it comes to this stuff. For that matter, I consider combat mission to be a near flawless ww2 sim. Charles did a fantastic job, as did everyone else who worked on this game. I know for a fact I stated at least once in this thread that the only thing I have a beef with is this issue, so I do not think that can be reasonably characterized as "questioning the entire model"  

As for having a dim view of his work, I have my own copy and have read almost all of it. I have referenced it repeatedly in this thread. 

 

I have an issue with one tanks armor vs one or two different guns that are ballistic ally very similar. I have no problem with these guns or this tank in any other context, nor did I ever say that I did. TBH, I dont really understand how you thought that I did, but its whatever. 

 

As for my credentials, I dont have any, but neither do any of the people I'm arguing with so far as I can tell. Hence my giving flying hetzer what they think. Not to say I just dismiss everything they say out of hand, but I dont give a crap how many posts someone has. Quite frankly, I think Im being judged quite a bit by the fact that I am outside certain peoples "list of known forum grognards"

 

PS: I DO work for the DOD. Just not in a manner relevant to this 

Edited July 24, 2015 by shift8

[c3k]

You started this by stating: "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. In my estimation, there seems to be no reason what-so-ever that the 76mm gun should not be able to reliably penetrate the Tigers frontal armor at reasonable angles under 1000m. At the very least under 800m. What exactly is battlefronts reason for this?"

 

My statement, which you took as an apparent insult, was that there are many gradations between what a "penetration" means to different folks. I don't know why you took umbrage, unless you cannot accept an opposing viewpoint? (Not what I think, based on you posts...but your reaction to my last post was bit "testy". Shrug.)

 

US Army penetration meant any light for 50% of the hits.

British army meant some mass percentage got through (it changed through the war) for 50% of the hits.

Germans always used oblique angles when testing and demanded the fuze be intact when through the armor.

The Soviets? I've forgotten.

(Actually, the above is off the top of my head. I am away from my references. I've looked this stuff up many times.)

 

The period technical services almost all (if not all) had different meanings for "penetration" and they used PROBABILITIES as well. Light coming through half the time meant it could penetrate? I'd hate to bet my life on those tables before I opened fire...

 

You think the Tiger deflects "almost all 76mm hits". Your words, OP.

Vanir Ausf B ran HUNDREDS of test. They showed that nearly all hits penetrated, spalled, or partially penetrated.

 

Your initial statement was disproven, yet you still argue...something????

 

A partial penetration is an effect. As is a full penetration. As is spalling. In each case, the armor has failed. 

 

What,precisely, do you expect from a 76mm hit on a Tiger hull front at 1,000m? At 800m? Do you maintain that it should FULLY penetrate (a whole shell, with intact fuzing) leaving a 76mm hole? Should it do this EVERY time?

 

Seriously. My above questions seek to determine precisely why you think the penetration model is wrong (or needs to be adjusted). VaB showed that 76mm vs. the Tiger front is pretty good, all things given. I'm wondering what you think should happen.

 

Ken

 

Edited to add: Here's a link to a nice summary of the various tests and results. http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/81013-us-guns-german-armor-pt-1/

 

Open up the "spoiler" in the first post. Of note, the BHN of the target plates vs. the actual German armor is a significant detractor from the ability of the 76mm's AP ammo to achieve "book" numbers in real tests.

Edited July 25, 2015 by c3k

[shift8]

I guess I once again have to repeat myself. 

 

Vanirs Tests, in my POV, do not disprove my claim that most rounds bounce off......since, if you are reading this thread, you would realize that I do not agree that a Partial penetration should be counted. 

 

As to his other points, I have already stated that something other than Shatter is probably responsible, at least in part, since the Pz4 failures are rather weird. 

 

Your statement for US Army penetrations is just plain false. 

 

US criteria"--------- "A significant portion of the projectile

must pass as a free missile through the plate"

 

 

British from 42-45: "Projectile completely through"

 

German: "Projectile completely through"

 

 

Source: http://amizaur.prv.pl/www.wargamer.org/GvA/index.html

 

 

 

 

So in short (as I already stated like 3 times now?): Perhaps shatter is not the primary culprit, but the guns are still failing when they should not. 

 

And I'll this last bit one more time: Its downright ridiculous to count a partial penetration as a success, since it DID NOT pass through the plate. There is not logical reason to presume that a PARTIAL penetration of something has made it through the plate. Hence the word partial. Lumping them both together completely defeats the purpose of having two different effects. A PP and a P are NOT measures of damage, the ARE measures of the success or failure of the shell of defeating the armor. If you guys want to mince words like this you are going to erase any possibility of a rational discussion because you are obfuscating the entire issue by twisting the semantics in a preposterous manner than beyond any common sense analysis of what these things mean. 

 

This discussion is about the BALLISTIC performance of these guns, not what criteria your or anyone else finds acceptable performance wise on the battlefield.

 

Why do I have to keep spelling this out? Ive said this about a billion times already, and I keep getting people whose responses are not disagreements of fact or method, BUT people who are making claims about things I said or didnt say that are ALREADY stamped in stone in this forum. I am getting tired of repeating myself, primarily because its downright frustrating to have to keep countering things that are downright contrary to what I did or did not say, with the insinuation that I am some kind of idiot for having not said or not said them (when in fact they are right there for you to see)

 

DO I have to start quoting my own posts from now on? I can handle a difference of opinion all day long, but this stuff where I have to defend the same positions on things the conversation already moved past is getting old. You want to challenge my thought process? FINE, that's perfectly ok. But in the name of sanity please read the thread before you come at me with things Ive already answered, unless your post is a counter argument predicated on actual continued disagreement and not simply ignoring what I said 50 times already. 

[Sgt Joch]

I see I missed this thread before. This is an issue I have looked into and tested often in the past in CMBN and CMFI.

First, yes, the penetration model is based partly on Rexford, but the shatter gap and predicted penetration in game is a lot more forgiving than what Rexford would predict. U.S. 75/76 mm ammo in game will penetrate in many instances where Rexford predicts it should be deflected. Rexford is just one element BFC factored in.

The real issue is that despite all the debates and predicted damage tables, there is actually very little empirical data, basically just the 3-4 U.S. Army tests in 1944. U.S./CW 75/76 mm ammo in game is more accurate and penetrates slightly better or better than what the 1944 tests would predict, at least from the in game tests I ran. Based on that, it is hard to say BFCs interpretation of the data is wrong.

[c3k]

Without trying to push you into that stroke you're headed towards, your "completely through" criteria has been shown to be false. That is not how the various technical services judged ballistic performance.

And how is a partial penetration not a penetration? If there is no behind armor effect it is a bounce and leaves a gouge, at best. (Game definition for this paragraph.)

[c3k]

For completeness, I'll post the Wa Pruef and various other nations' ordnance branch criteria for penetration in their ballistic tables. It will have to wait until I get home...on Tuesday.

[shift8]

For completeness, I'll post the Wa Pruef and various other nations' ordnance branch criteria for penetration in their ballistic tables. It will have to wait until I get home...on Tuesday.

There is nothing wrong with guns vs armor.com its comes straight from documents. Wa Pruef is estimations. 

[c3k]

That link failed to work on my phone.

[shift8]

There isn't any refuting this. What I posted above was the offical standards of penetrations as defined by those nations when they did their tests. Guns vs Armor is a very respected site, and the info there comes in large part from primary source documentation, and partially from very reliable secondary sources. 

 

 

1. Source: Robert Livingston. Robert derived his information from a paper available on microfilm at the Patton Museum (curator Charles Lemons). This criteria is known as the ‘Navy Limit’ but it applies to the testing of weapons of any service arm. There are other criteria, used for purposes other than the testing of gun penetration, known as the ‘Army Limit’ and the ‘Protection Ballistic Limit’. [up]

Edited July 25, 2015 by shift8

[Vanir Ausf B]

To your first quote: I already stated several posts ago that given how both guns performed in your tests there might be something else going on. Although I was already aware of the Pz4 gun being use as a control from your extremely similar tests in the thread "M10s kill Tiger 1 from 800m" which I had read before this thread. I didnt give that much thought I the time though since your conclusion then was that there was in fact some shatter gap, since your results in that thread led you to from thinking it wasnt in game at the beginning, to thinking it was to some degree in the end, and as I recall it was specifically due to the Pz4 gun.

This is very strange. You were aware of my previous tests demonstrating only slim evidence of shatter gap yet nevertheless spent the first several pages of this thread railing against the "extreme" prevalence of it in the game? And you did this because those tests had changed my mind about whether it was in the game at all?

Also can you point out where Rexford gives some kind of definitive percentage of what hits should shatter? As far as I can tell, he only gets a range where it could MAY shatter, since he uses the words "suggests" and "may" in reference too it, and I dont see a single place in his book that says anything remotely like "X percent of rounds falling into this GAP will shatter and fail" In fact, he stated elsewhere on this forums if Im not mistaken that the problem was specifically with rounds made from Chevrolet, only 1 three manufacturers, which would imply that it would be a problem less often than not.

Unless you are interested in a purely acedemic discussion I don't know why you are still bringing up aspects of shatter gap theory when its present implementation is at or very close to what you began the thread asking for.

Seems to me like Battlefront used different words to mean different things. Nobody is going to logically call somewhat less energetic PTP's Partial Penetrations. For one, it would be a totally unnecessary distinction, since damage done, or not done is already a metric for that. And it would be linguistically retarded.

Nobody is going to logically call strikes that do not penetrate into the interior at all "partial penetrations" either. Except for the US Army. I will not cast aspersions on the Army's linguistics but I will say they make BFC's look not so bad.

I guess I once again have to repeat myself.

Vanirs Tests, in my POV, do not disprove my claim that most rounds bounce off......since, if you are reading this thread, you would realize that I do not agree that a Partial penetration should be counted.

Partial penetrations in-game do not bounce. Ever.

I have reported my test results to BFC to review. I have no idea when or even if that will take place.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[shift8]

1. No, I just didnt care about your conclusions one way or another then. Im just pointing out now how I think it interesting that you are getting two different conclusions from the same test. 

 

2. That was purely academic, and intended only  a side question as to where you got that impression from. Obliviously we are past shatter gap here. 

 

3. Yes, Yes the wouid. And the fact that the Army agrees with me should tell you that the typical interpretation is not in line with your own. Penetration = Round passes through  plate "penetrating" hat armor. If you PARTIALLY penetrate something, you failed to finish the job, and complete perforation did not take place. That is the only sane interpretation of those words. Your version is hung up on the word "penetration" and your assigning simply whatever you want to the partial part. 

 

4. Bounce there was used not in a physical sense. I TOTALLY agree that Partial penetrations to not literally bounce. I should have used the word "defeated" there. I only intended to imply failure of the round in a ballistic sense. 

[akd]

Point is that game is probably using the most stringent definition of penetration, which is 100% of the projectile passes through the plate with fuze intact.  This is useful from a game design standpoint, as it would determine whether the behind plate effects are kinetic only based on retained energy or have the added effect of a burster charge if present.

Consequently, a number of the PTP in the US test probably fall under CM partial penetration criteria.

[Vanir Ausf B]

3. Yes, Yes the wouid. And the fact that the Army agrees with me should tell you that the typical interpretation is not in line with your own.

I am done arguing definitions. Yes, the game uses different terminology than the 1940s-era US Army. No, that is not "insane" nor does it mean there must be something wrong with the ballistics modeling.

Edited July 25, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

4. Bounce there was used not in a physical sense. I TOTALLY agree that Partial penetrations to not literally bounce. I should have used the word "defeated" there. I only intended to imply failure of the round in a ballistic sense.

In CM these so-called "defeated" rounds are destroying targets. That is not a failure in my book.

[shift8]

I am done arguing definitions. Yes, the game uses different terminology than the 1940s-era US Army. No, that is not "insane" nor does it mean there must be something wrong with the ballistics modeling.

You have provided no proof of that, and your interpretation of the lexis is in my estimation non-nonsensical. 

Edited July 25, 2015 by shift8

[shift8]

In CM these so-called "defeated" rounds are destroying targets. That is not a failure in my book.

I guess I have to repeat this again. I dont care what your definition of tactically acceptable is. This is ballistic failure, not tactical failure we are discussing. Is this hard for you to comprehend? Because I have to say it every other post. If the crew is inexperienced and they bail out just from being hit, does that mean the gun is effective? Lol. 

[Baneman]

I guess I have to repeat this again. I dont care what your definition of tactically acceptable is. This is ballistic failure, not tactical failure we are discussing. Is this hard for you to comprehend? Because I have to say it every other post. If the crew is inexperienced and they bail out just from being hit, does that mean the gun is effective? Lol. 

 

But your definitions obviously do not jibe with the game. We're seeing the results we expect with Full and Partial Penetrations in terms of the results - Full Penetrations usually KO ( but not always ) and Partials sometimes KO. The total % of KO's may be a little low ( hard to tell with low sample sizes ), but not as low as you imply by ignoring the Partial Penetrations.

 

Also - if a shell hits and only makes it part of the way through the armour, but some gets through ( assumed to be game definition of Partial Penetration ) and destroys a vital component, KO'ing the tank, does that mean the gun is ineffective ?

[shift8]

But your definitions obviously do not jibe with the game. We're seeing the results we expect with Full and Partial Penetrations in terms of the results - Full Penetrations usually KO ( but not always ) and Partials sometimes KO. The total % of KO's may be a little low ( hard to tell with low sample sizes ), but not as low as you imply by ignoring the Partial Penetrations.

 

Also - if a shell hits and only makes it part of the way through the armour, but some gets through ( assumed to be game definition of Partial Penetration ) and destroys a vital component, KO'ing the tank, does that mean the gun is ineffective ?

According to what Rinaldi stated, which is line with my own experience, PP only kills about 30% of the time. Which is what I would expect from a round that doesn't make it through the armor, but depending on how far it got, might send huge chunks of the armor through the tank. People keep getting results mixed with what is physically occuring. 

 

To you second question: Perhaps I misunderstand your sentence, but as I define a PP, none of the projectile gets through the armor as a missile. It either is stuck in the armor, or perhaps a bit of it is poking through the armor, but it is lodged, and any damage that was done was not from the projectile itself, but secondary effects-----such as displaced armor being dislodged and causing damage. Not unlike what a HESH round attempts to do on purpose. But once again, to your last bit, this is not about the "effectiveness of the gun," but about determining if they are performing to spec. 

 

With regards to that, whether or not a PP does damage and kills the tank is not relevant, since such a thing would not have been measured by any nation as a penetration when the gun was tested for the purpose of recording penetration tables. Ergo, when we compare the Tigers armor to the AP power of the guns in this thread, according to the tech specs we should be seeing shells that completely pass through the plate as a missile, since that is what the AP charts recorded. Nations did not count rounds lodged in the armor, regardless of the damage, as penetrations. Does my position make sense now?

[Baneman]

..., but as I define a PP, none of the projectile gets through the armor as a missile. It either is stuck in the armor, or perhaps a bit of it is poking through the armor, but it is lodged, and any damage that was done was not from the projectile itself, but secondary effects-----...

 

And what we keep trying to impress upon you is that your definition of a PP may not be the game's definition.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You have provided no proof of that, and your interpretation of the lexis is in my estimation non-nonsensical.

 

I do have proof.

 

PTP = Projectile passes through plate.

CP = Complete Penetration

 

CM doesn't use these terms at all, and "spalling" isn't a category of hit in the 1944 report. "Partial penetration" is the only linguistic overlap between the two. It is obvious that BFC did not use the 1944 US Army classification as a template for CM, therefore your belief that what the game defines as a PP must be the same as what the 1944 report defines is just bizarre.

 

I guess I have to repeat this again. I dont care what your definition of tactically acceptable is.

 

I have not given a definition of tactically acceptable. I haven't even used that term. If you mean my belief that there is nothing major wrong with the ballistics then the fact that you don't care what I think confirms my suspicion that I am wasting my time here.

 

This is ballistic failure, not tactical failure we are discussing. Is this hard for you to comprehend? Because I have to say it every other post. If the crew is inexperienced and they bail out just from being hit, does that mean the gun is effective? Lol

.

And if the tank explodes does that mean the gun is ineffective? LOL  

 

I am done with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shift8]

And what we keep trying to impress upon you is that your definition of a PP may not be the game's definition.

And I keep pressing upon you that you have no reason to think that. BFC hasn't said anything either way. And defining it outside the most common sense interpretation of the words is downright silly. The words "partial penetration" simply do not infer in way what-so-ever that the round passes though the plate. I mean think about this, if it did, it would derive all meaning from the word Penetration, and the having those two distinct labels would lose all efficacy. In my estimation, there simply isnt any reason to twist PP into something other than a round that PARTIALLY makes it thought the armor unless your going out of your way to justify the armor model in this case. There isnt anything at all about the words partial penetration that imply thats the round performed just like a "penetration" at a somewhat lower energy state. That is a completely made up point of view that has nothing to do with the description itself. If we are going to start throwing out the obvious meaning of words and tacing whatever we fancy to them, then we are rapidly going to render the English language rather moot. 

[shift8]

 

I do have proof.

 

PTP = Projectile passes through plate.

CP = Complete Penetration

 

CM doesn't use these terms at all, and "spalling" isn't a category of hit in the 1944 report. "Partial penetration" is the only linguistic overlap between the two. It is obvious that BFC did not use the 1944 US Army classification as a template for CM, therefore your belief that what the game defines as a PP must be the same as what the 1944 report defines is just bizarre.

 

 

I have not given a definition of tactically acceptable. I haven't even used that term. If you mean my belief that there is nothing major wrong with the ballistics then the fact that you don't care what I think confirms my suspicion that I am wasting my time here.

 

.

And if the tank explodes does that mean the gun is ineffective? LOL

 

I am done with you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good, your lack on input here will help the conversation go somewhere useful. 

 

You do not have proof. Where has BFC stated they agree with you? Show us the writing on the wall if you have it. A CP by any logical process would be part of CMBN PP section. Any the lack of spalling being mentioned is completely meaningless. They werent doing a damage test, they were doing a ballistic one. 

 

Im not even going to dignify your last bit with the smiley with a response, simply refer to the first part of the this reply.

[shift8]

I am done arguing definitions. Yes, the game uses different terminology than the 1940s-era US Army. No, that is not "insane" nor does it mean there must be something wrong with the ballistics modeling.

Funny how were using information you didnt agree with to support your "proof." Suddenly the Army definitions are relevant again to the game that doesnt use them. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Christ on a crutch. I said I was done but this is too much.
 

Good, your lack on input here will help the conversation go somewhere useful.

 May I remind you that my input is the only reason you are not still blathering on about shatter gap?
 

You do not have proof. Where has BFC stated they agree with you? Show us the writing on the wall if you have it.

 

What I claimed to have proof of is that the game "uses different terminology" than the 1944 report. I did not claim to have proof of what BFC's definition of a PP is. Do try to keep up.

 

Funny how were using information you didnt agree with to support your "proof." Suddenly the Army definitions are relevant again to the game that doesnt use them.

 

 

What?! Where did I say that I did not agree with the Army report? Oh that's right, I didn't. You just made that up.