Long 88mm lacking punch?

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

In this case the 17ln APDS failed vs the DFP above 800yrds & the 17lb APCBC performed better that was my point.

Regards, John Waters

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think 17 Lbr APDS was very accurate at 800 yrds

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

I dont think 17 Lbr APDS was very accurate at 800 yrds

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno User, just the conclusions of the report after 2, 17lb APDS rounds rounds failed at 3427 ft/s & 3602 ft/s vs the visor plate @ 41^.

The single 17lb APDS round they were able to fire at the mantlet, defeated it with the round breaking up on the right side of the recoil cylinder houseing @ 3482 ft/s @ 40^. They concluded the APDS round could defeat the mantlet up to 1500yrds.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-12-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

I guess my point is that we shouldnt just focus on penetration (something freudian here?) but also see the gun as a weapons system. The russians had some great guns , 100mm and 57 mm but they had lousy optics. I wouldnt concern myself that a 57mm could penetrate the turret ring of a panther at 2600 meters. He wouldnt hit it.

I believe (my own thinking here) that the discarding sabot AP from a rifled gun is VERY inaccurate because of the spinning sabots impart some disturbance force. Im sure the brits had a minimum range to engage with these rare rounds.

Lewis

[Simon Fox]

Yes Lewis the APDS round was less accurate than APC or APCBC rounds and the Brits were aware of it. Some of it was to do with instability in flight (which couldn't be fixed) and some was to do with the differences in flight (which could be worked aroundby zeroing the gun for APDS). I don't know if these could be called "VERY inaccurate" however as otherwise they wouldn't have been introduced.

To answer your point if we take the 6pdr as an example using the recommended maximum engagement range for APDS was 800yds and APCBC 1000yds. This was based on a 50% hit chance on a target 2ftx5ft.

[aka_tom_w]

Well I guess I have to say I'm just not real comfortable with the forum unless I see this thread at the top of the list.

Back to the top

Lest we forget!

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

oops

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Aussie Smith]

LOL Tom - you always want to be on top I guess .

On a bye note Steve/Charles....with CM2 where/how are you getting the Russian gun data? I ask this so we can argue about it now and get it out of the way before the release of the game .

Craig (time Management is my middle name)

[This message has been edited by Aussie Smith (edited 09-20-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Craig,

It is a bit early to say. However, I suspect it will be rather easy to aquire the necessary data about shells, velocity, etc. needed for the equations to function. This is one of the benefits of not being tied down to ballistics tests, since the Soviet tests are often looked as being of questionable value at best.

Steve

[Aussie Smith]

Steve

I guess copious quantities of Vodka will need to be consumed to just make sure your feeling adequately "Russian" when you review the data - we wouldn't want you reading the data nor developing it without you being suitably Russian

I'm more than happy to join you in this test/development phase (at BTS expense of course - lol).

Craig

[Paul Lakowski]

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

[PzKpfw 1]

Well I'm still worried about the questionable CM results concerning the everpopular 8.8 cm KwK.43 @ 30^ & getting that dispute settled, which hopefully should be soon now.

Sorry had to post it so no one get's the mistaken impression that we have forgotten the original issue

Regards, John Waters

------------

"die verdammte Jabos".

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-21-2000).]

[Aussie Smith]

John

I understand mate

I just wish I could dig up some data that all sides agree on – I’ll go back to being a bystander on this topic.

Craig

[The DesertFox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I just wish I could dig up some data that all sides agree on – I’ll go back to being a bystander on this topic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don´t worry, until then we have to agree to disagree

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WOW when you don't have to restrict you formula to approaching the experimental results then the 'skies the limit'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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).]

[The DesertFox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also wondering why the big "angle conspiracy" faded away when Charles mentioned the source of CM's angle penetration formulas<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because we now know why the CM data differ as it differs ?

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because we now know why the CM data differ as it differs ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, my personal theory is because certain people don't feel it is as fun to publically insult someone OTHER than Charles on this matter. Now someone else, who is greatly respected and admired, will have to suffer if this Spanish Inquisition continues. Guess that took the fun out of it?

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-21-2000).]

[The DesertFox]

Ahh Steve no,

We aren´t [at least I myself am not] here to start a spanish inquisition or such a thing.

I think you have the tendency to take this discussion too personal. It isn´t a discussion to discredit this excellent game. It is a discussion to point out detail inconsistencies to give you feedback to start thinking about improvement here and there, where you feel it is necessary and in agreement with your game philosophy.

I think everyone who deals or has dealt with the field of WW2 armour penetration knows how hard it is to find a solution which fit´s all purposes. Especially if primary source material is limited and not sufficiently documented.

Again, don´t understand this talk as an attempt to discredit you or Charles. It´s just my feeling that neither you nor I have the be all end all solution at hand.

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Slapdragon]

I am not qualified to argue about ballistics, but I can say that at 1500 yards the 88L70 kills E2 Shermans 50% of the time (I am rounding from a test). Saying that a 1500 yard kill on a Jumbo lacks punch is like saying a 70mph train hitting my car lacks umph because it only threw it 80 feet instead of 89 feet. Now, maybe some of the later war Soviet tanks are going to give this thing a pass at a kilometer and a half, on most Soviet tanks this thing is going to shoot sunlight through them, not to mention American tanks who are in danger even when they are hiding behind another tank

I do think however that BigTime is correct in asking a supported mathematical model before changing what is already a killer tank gun. Avalon Hill never did that with its kill tables in SL!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Helge,

To date this thread has produced nothing more than various different assortments of conjecture as to why CM's output differs from certain ballistics tests. This would be fine, and even enjoyable, if it wasn't (at times) intended to be personal.

As you say, ballistics is not something that is easy to simulate. It is also, as this thread has clearly shown, not easy to document first hand. Or at least, it is not easy to know exactly what this 1st hand documention means some 55 years after the fact.

Our point has been, from the start, that CM's treatment is accurate. Our approach, which *is* scientifically sound (even if it turns out it contains some flaws), has been repeatedly called into question and at times ridiculed without any coherent counter position based on science, logic, and data combined. It is really hard not to take things personally when some of the things said here were definitely intended to be personal.

But the thread remains open. Why? Because we have no interest in shutting down this thread because WHO KNOWS... something might actually come from it. Stranger things have been known to happen

Steve

[The DesertFox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Stranger things have been known to happen

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is true Steve an I am happy that this excellent thread didn´t turn into a flamefest and got padlocked. I think both sides can learn a lot out of the interesting exchange, regardless if they agree 100% or not.

Let´s hope someone will find a reasonble explanation for the L/71 difference which you might be able to implement in the game.

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Cardinal Fang]

BTS (Steve) sez

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, my personal theory is because certain people don't feel it is as fun to

publically insult someone OTHER than Charles on this matter. Now someone

else, who is greatly respected and admired, will have to suffer if this Spanish

Inquisition continues. Guess that took the fun out of it?

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Sound of door being kicked in)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Cardinal Fang

Have Comfy Chair. Will Travel.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

To answer your point if we take the 6pdr as an example using the recommended maximum engagement range for APDS was 800yds and APCBC 1000yds. This was based on a 50% hit chance on a target 2ftx5ft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr Fox

Do you really mean 2 ft by 5 ft? Thats small it seems. If it was an anti tank gun shooting, I would want better odds than 50 percent before opening up. If I did open up at that range, I would certainly want greater than 90 percent penetration if I did get a hit! Or a deep trench nearby to leap into..

Lewis

[Paul Lakowski]

<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????

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would we want to do that Steve? all were concerned about is this little mystery of the 30^ results in CM & the KwK.43 not how it works as a whole.

Interesting how CMs formula results are so close to the test data results, but point out their may be errors concerning the @ 30^ & it's suddenly a conspiracy & the LF test data is all only good where it matches CMs formula results, if it doesnt come close or match then the LF data is incorrect & no good etc and were guilty of half thought out ramblings & accepting this or that at face value etc, etc, etc.

What made you think the angle "conspiracy" disapeared Steve? I have seen no data that confirms that CM @ 30^ data is empericly corect. And considering the what could be percieved run around, concerning CM's formula source data which was suposed to originaly be the British 1950 report.

Then when the angle business came up & we start looking into it seriously, mistakenly believing what were doing would help make CM better. We get imformed rather belatedly that yes we are correct their are errors in Sopwiths formula concerning angles but oh BTW, we were aware of it &, Charles used something else etc, and the data is vs enemy plate not country of origin plate, but the data results @ 0^ & 30^ for the most part match the guns country of origin test plate published results.

Then well pondereing matters we find out the 30^ data is not even generated by CM's formula, but is now (despite the earlier fluster, on how scientificly accurate the formula was etc), allegedly supplied by Robert Livingston.

I have no confirmation yet on what data he did or didn't give, hence the lull.

What I have confirmed, is R. Livingston was consulted for CM during its development he explained to Charles how the angle equasions were flawed in the 1950 report, & how penetration worked etc,& got a free game.

As for this threads conspiracy tones or insults etc, of this or that; I think a case could be made that its more the much maligned few; who didn't jump on the bandwagon concerning BTS's explanation of why something was so diferent from refrence material on this issue getting the short stick on credibility etc.

Infact everyone please go reread all the posts & pls point out the conspiracy tones insults etc, & who made them to us, as I don't see any.

I see ppl shareing knowledge & trying to make a great game better. Oh & Steve when we figure it out, you won't have to peek, youl' be the 1st to know ...

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-21-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

Great post John

One thing that still concerns me, and it has been clearly pointed out that these comments don't belong in this thread, but I will comment here anyway because this thread is current....

Is the methodolgy behind the "chance to hit" percentage or calculation.

When we speak of penetration and muzzle velocity and armour thickness there were actaul tests that generateted actual numerical results that can be argued over.

But in the case of the use of oh let me think now optical targeting mechanisms and determining chance to him percentages at long ranges (never mind the penetration results for the minute) what reliable and publically available data or methodology supports the way CM models long range "chance to hit" percentages for the long 88.

Again I know of only first hand annecdotal reports of its legendary accuracy and I will again suggest some high velocity German main guns and most certainly the Flak 88 with the donkey ears range finder, should have a great long distance chance to hit percentage modeled.

Again I know i will be asked "how much great chance to hit? and from what source do you make this claim?

all I can say is I'm not sure there is a source and I wonder what source CM used to code and model their current long range chance to hit percentages?

Thanks again

no conspiracy and in my opinion it is ANYTHING but personal just a diligent search for what ever facts and "truth" about these matter that we can all uncover and share in.

-tom w

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division:

The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories.

Superior Flotation.

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.

The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.

German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.

German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks.

The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression.

The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943. "

-Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>