Long 88mm lacking punch?

PzKpfw 1 · August 24, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

Charles and Steve,

Why are you letting these guys suck you in. Your have stated you reasoning for making the decisions you have while making YOUR GAME. These people obviously just want to make you pull your hair out. They don't make any valid points, why waste you time and energy? If they have a prob with the 88 lang not penetrating at long range as much as they "THINK" should, instead of asking GOD ie Steve&Charles to give them the ubergun to kill satan, why don't they as a commander fiqure out a way to win a battle under those constrants? They obviously want to go play Command and Conquer 2:TS and use the hand of nod all night long, then be forced to make tough command decisions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err Excuse me what do you mean sucked in? reasnable questions were asked obviously or else the thread would be locked, why would they pull their hair out?.

I believe valid points were made on both sides in this thread. I aknowleged Charle's points etc, even provided evidence for one, they aknowledged their points.

You are correct its their game they can do absolutely whatever they wish. Did someone say it was not?. Would you prefer we not discuss anything that can be percieved a negative comment against CM?.

Would you prefer that the Tiger mantlet was never fixed to refelect reality?, or the 50cal was still as deadly as in 1.03 moveing at full speed?, all this was corrected due in part to CM user input, these wern't negative comments but ppl who saw something wrong and questioned it, and in the end were obviously correct as it was patched.

Ubergun? has anyone here asked Charles to change the gun value? because this thread in its current state is NOT about CM, it has evolved beyond CM.

Regards, John Waters

----------

"Go For the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!!".

PzKpfw 1 · August 24, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Vanir:

Ah. I'm glad you cleared that up. Notice I did say 2 or 3 That was because I wasn't sure where you were going with this.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Actually, we want the same thing: as good a game as we can get. I'm only sticking up for BTS because their arguements in favor of their curren system have struck me as very logical and well reasoned. If some one does come up with solid facts saying their wrong I'll admit it as I suspect Steve and Charles will as well. You are correct that for those who still think something is amiss, a carefull study of the British report is the only way to go.

Well... time for some CM!

Exactly!! finaly someone else understands my questioning this. . Oh I agree they drfintly currently have the upper hand . thats why I am not commenting on it anymore, at this time.

The person whom discovered the flaw (& the 1 person whom I wish was here) is Robert Livingston, he's well known among ppl interested in WW2 armor & gun data, in fact he probably has more data on WW2 penetration then Aberdeen, & Bovington, combined.

Anyway he discovered the error or someone in his group did IIRC while going through the Report, you can see alot of his work on Claus Bonnesons "On Armor" site. If he ever finishes his book we will all learn alot.

Regards, John Waters

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

People who can smile when things go wrong

have found someone else to blame.

Paul Lakowski · August 25, 2000

WHY WAS MY LAST POST DELETED??????:/

Ben Galanti · August 25, 2000

Err, did you make one after your 4:02 PM post? If not, make sure your browser isn't showing a cached version of the thread..

August 25, 2000

"Kwazudog makes a nice post, with good points, and then ruins it by marginalizing his argument."

Mental note to self : Stop marginalizing your personal opinions, it apparently annoys people

"The choices are not between "calculated statistics" and "blind faith". The arguments presented by John and others are quite convincing, but then, so are the arguments provided by BTS."

Hmmmm, interesting point Jeff. True, I can understand how someone could read my post that way if they read it swiftly *BUT* I did state that it was my opinion, nothing more whatsoever. Am I allowed my opinion Jeff, I so hope so...

The guys discussing this with Charles and Steve have addressed thier side well and generally in good form but it was my *personal* opinion that the details provided by Charles and Steve outweighted the evidence produced by their side in this debate. Personally I feel considering what we are talking about was half a century ago now it is best to base calculations on formula rather than other peoples numbers yes, but then again I probably see it that way becuase I have a degree in science not statistics, so that is purely my *personal* opinion, NOTHING more.

"to portray one side as reasoned and the other as ridiculous makes you look like you have an agenda, not a point."

Hmmm, as is responding to my post in the manner you did Jeff, which is interesting.

I stated it was my *opinion*, NOTHING MORE. If I had an agenda I would have been posting in this thread from day one, wouldnt I? Instead I sat back, read bot sides of the argument and gave my opinion at a point where no further evidence was being presented, thats all...oh, if thats ok with you, of course

So Jeff, my thought is what indeed is your agenda here, hmmmm.....I wonder

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 08-25-2000).]

August 25, 2000

John, apologies if my 'blind faith' comment sounded like an attack, it was not intended as so though I can understand as it may have come across as one. I guess my point was more along the lines of why these figures are considered accurate. But no need to answer, I think youve covered that already along with more than Id ever thought I would have know about this subject, hehe.

Its been a pleasure to read a somewhat heated debate at this one without it turning into a flame war!

KwazyDog

Disclaimer : This post is intended solely as an opinion of the above user and contains no hidden agendas that the user is aware of.

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 08-24-2000).]

August 25, 2000

For me the reason this discussion is a big deal is if Big Time Software is right, a LOT of people are wrong. Just rummaging through the war book pile I see 'Tank Killers' by Ian Hogg, 'Tiger Tanks' by Michael Green, and 'German Tanks of WWII' by George Forty. All excellent books I've found and ALL have the higher penetration specs for the 88mm/L71 gun. (mind, most seem to quote the same 'captured German war data').

And of course, this is no ordinary tank gun, but the one claimed to be the best all around tank gun of the war, so it is a bit more special than most.

Maybe BTS is right, and the formula rules. Maybe Lakowski is right, and the long rod penetrator concept (or something else we don't know about) made the difference. How to know for sure? Unless one of those things could be taken out to the firing range and tried out (or some new, definative evidence found) I think all parties will just have to agree to disagree.

Paul Lakowski · August 25, 2000

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

Helge,

Jentz and Hogg are the closest ones to one another. They are similar at 500m and 1000m, but start to differ significantly at 2000m (by 5.3%).

WO185 differs even more from Jentz beyond 500m. At 1000m the difference is 2.4%, and at 2000m it's 9.1%!

Oh boy now we get to WO219 which is different from everybody. Comparing to Jentz, we get a 3.8% difference at 500m and a whopping 17.9% difference at 1000m. This is HUGE!

And I haven't even mentioned the Bovington numbers yet. So stop acting as if the Bovington numbers are a single outlier. Clearly - and we're using the data that you provided, Helge - none of these data sets agree. The other four are not close to one another. Some of the differences (up to 17.9%!!!) are major.

Is 17.9% enough variance for you to consider it significant, Helge? How can you overlook a difference that large?

In fact, WO219 gives a penetration value at 1000m for the 88 L/71 that is less than the value given in Combat Mission! If I am to take you at face value and "just use the published figures" then perhaps I should choose WO219 and lower the capability of the 88 L/71 in CM even further? By your reasoning, this is what I should do.

To sum up, the published figures - not even considering the Bovington data - are NOT close to one another. They do NOT agree.

Even your own figures clearly indicate that you are wrong.

There is no wrong data just wrong interpretations of the data.

Armor penetration follows a normal distribution so that the ballistic limit value is actually a average of a whole number of results from any given test firing at a given range and angle of attack.

The variation on this is up to ± 40% for AP type shots at ordnance and sub ordnance velocity.If you truncate the results to the most likely 80-90% , the values is ± 20°.

With about 2/3 of results being ~ ± 5%.

However to compound things each country uses its own defination of what is a 'complete penetration' and 'partial penetration'.

The USARMY used the US NAVY standard untill 1955[ I think?] . This standard classifies penetration as when the projectile completely clears the plate and penetrates a 'witness plate' behind the armor. This roughly corresponds to 75-80% of hits successfully penetrate, which is similar to the Soviet standard which is ~ 75%.... In other wards penetration is not reported to occur until that many complete penetrations occur.

Afterwards they changed to the 'inital breaking point' which corresponds to ~ 20% of hits penetrating.

The Germans and most modern armies and researchers use the 50% ballistic limit value cause its the easiest to determine accurately.

I'm not sure about the brits as theres was ~ 80% for the 2Lb, but I was always told it was 50% like the Germans.

So what does all this mean ... If your data is American or Soviet from the 50s it may be under rating penetration by ~ upto 20%, when compared to German or research data.

:USERNAME: · August 25, 2000

I repeat does anyone have weight, length, diameter differences between the german 88L56 and the 88L71?

I think the german 88L71 had phenom tungsten penetration also? Didnt certain german guns use progressive rifling? theres lots of variables and formulas cant take in all variables. Also ammo has quality problems/variance. Who knows what got shipped to aberdeen and fired.

The DesertFox · August 25, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Except for one crucial point, Paul: that the formulae we use correctly match all test data we've come across except for the data from the 88 L/71, which for all the reasons listed above (which you continue to dodge, even though we challenge you directly to refute them) are clearly suspect and inconsistent.

For a 50-year old formula, that's pretty good. It matches everything except one set of data that is clearly frought with problems itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my

Charles, Steve,

I understand all your points made, that your formula matches the data you have available from Bovington and Aberdeen except the 88/L71. That you have chosen to base your formula on this 50 years old report and that you think we have too much blind faith in Jentz data. That´s all fine for me, believe me I can live with that. But that´s not the point here.

You indirectly question the credibility of commonly accepted primary source material and the work of quite a lot of very credible people if you take the liberty to back up your data with german penetration test result data for the 88/L56 and 75/L70 but refuse the 88/L71 data because it doesn´t fit your formula.

To the results your formula is producing concerning all other guns which are in the game. I took the liberty to compare the results the CM engine is producing with the data wich is commonly available at David Honners Website [http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/]. The sources for his data are publicly stated and are basing on the well accepted publications by Chamberlain, Gudgin, Hogg, Hunnicutt, Gander, Jentz, Spielberger and von Senger and Etterlin to name a few. I put all the 30 degrees data into one Excel file to grafically analyze it. [i know that this method isn´t holding scientific standards, but you easyly can see tendencies]. Bottomline is that the results your formula produces have a perfect fit with the german data in case of the 88/L56 and the 75/L70, furthermore for the US 75/L40 but hugely differ [even more than the 88L/71 values in question do] in other cases.

So what do I have to believe ? The data which is published from well accepted authorities in the field or the data your formula is producing ?

Do you want me to send you the file or do you want to compare the data yourself by extracting them from David Honners website ?

BTW: If you would say you don´t want to change the data because you don´t feel the need out of gamedesign decisions that´s fine for me, as I already said earlier in this thread . But arguing the credibility of LF testresults in one case and backing up your point with them in another case makes me scratch my head.

Helge

Simon Fox · August 25, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Chamberlain, Gudgin, Hogg, Hunnicutt, Gander, Jentz, Spielberger and von Senger and Etterlin<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geez, Helge you just can't do that. These guys all got their info from someone elses tests. Are they the same original source or different ones? Did they do their own analysis of the raw data or do they use the analysis given by the guys testing? You may be right but it is impossible to know from what you say.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But arguing the credibility of LF testresults in one case and backing up your point with them in another case makes me scratch my head.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

???? You are just obscuring the issue by that statement. I fail to see how all the german tests in WW2 could be considered as one homogeneous entity. Why should they be considered as such? Even with each gun and ammo type there may have been multiple tests. Hypothetically speaking would you consider someone 'concerned' about the results of one experiment as having challenged the credibility of them all even when they are quite distinct? Your answer should prove illuminating.

Will someone please answer Lewis's question as it seems pretty pertinent.

August 25, 2000