D-25T vs 8.8 cm KwK 43

[Fizou]

 

I found this very interesting and not really what is portrayed in CMBB or CMRT.

 

[Phantom Captain]

Good stuff, and very interesting indeed.

Does this mean we have to find a PBEM on King Tigers vs IS-2s now?  Haha!

 

 

Edited February 5 by Phantom Captain

[Fizou]

I guess so!

[Vanir Ausf B]

This is reportedly a Tiger I mantlet hit by an IS-2 in Romania. Granted, we don't know the range, but the close grouping suggests it was not super far.

 

 

 

Edited February 5 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vacillator]

8 hours ago, Fizou said:

I found this very interesting and not really what is portrayed in CMBB or CMRT.

So do we believe it?  I have an open mind but he does use Soviet data.  Just saying.

Anyway as for in-game I recall one of my first encounters with IS2s (Gog and Magog I think) - perhaps it agrees with what you're saying as the 88mm L/71s on my KTs certainly could penetrate the IS2s' fronts at some distance, unlike the above data.  Not quite the same, but more recently my opponent in Cat and mouse with 75mm L/70 Panther guns had no trouble achieving penetrations either.  My IS2s prevailed on that day however...

[Vanir Ausf B]

42 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

Anyway as for in-game I recall one of my first encounters with IS2s (Gog and Magog I think) - perhaps it agrees with what you're saying as the 88mm L/71s on my KTs certainly could penetrate the IS2s' fronts at some distance, unlike the above data. 

The IS-2s in Gog and Magog are the "mid" models with a stepped upper front hull. The "late" model IS-2 has a uniformly sloped upper front hull that can't be penetrated by the 88mmL71, although the mantlet can.

Edited February 5 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vacillator]

5 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The "late" model IS-2

Okay, you make a very good point. 

7 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

can't be penetrated by the 88mmL71, although the mantlet can

Is that based on the data presented above, or other sources?

[Anthony P.]

3 hours ago, Vacillator said:

So do we believe it?  I have an open mind but he does use Soviet data.  Just saying.

That's the issue I wasn't going to raise by myself, but since it's been broached...

Samsonov's written some interesting bits based on translations of original documents but he sorely lacks a historian's background, and it shows in some ridiculous methodology. I'm not going to trawl through years' worth of his blog posts to provide an extensive list of examples, but some which come to mind:

"Disproving" the notion that the T-34 was a cramped tank by comparing a T-34 and a Panzer IV's manuals, and measuring the headroom available to the crewmen illustrated in said manuals. Since the illustrated T-34 crewman had a millimeter or so more space between the top of his head and the roof in the manual's pictures, he'd "proven" that the T-34 actually had a roomier crew compartment than the Panzer IV.

"Proving" that Soviet helmets provided superior ballistic protection to German helmets based on a 1942 report testing half a dozen completely random, captured German helmets from the battle of Moscow against new Soviet helmets. Ironically he'd also translated the part of the report which noted that the methodology was so flawed that no conclusions could be drawn from it.

Basically, anything he reads in original Soviet documents, he takes at face value with supreme confidence. It seems he doesn't realise the point of studies beyond those he is already capable of, i.e. translations.

Edited February 5 by Anthony P.

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Vacillator said:

Is that based on the data presented above, or other sources?

In-game results. Although I neglected to mention that the lower front hull can be penetrated in addition to the turret and mantlet. So yes, the IS-2 is fairly vulnerable to the 88mmL71 overall.

[Vanir Ausf B]

BTW, to echo @Anthony P.s excellent points above, the guy in the video has a website (linked in the video description) containing a wealth of Soviet primary source material. But he is absolutely not an impartial investigator. He presents information that supports his narrative, ignores everything that doesn't, and is hostile to anyone who questions the data.

[Vacillator]

All of which makes we wonder which sources of data Charles/BFC used to model this in CM?  I suppose we'll never know, but do we think that the game seems 'reasonably sensible' from the lethality/vulnerability point of view?  I think so, but I may be subject to misconceptions and popular myths.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The CM1 games leaned heavily on WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery by Bird and Livingston. Most CM2 results are still very close to their data but it appears BFC have migrated away from that in some areas. For example, CM2 does not use Bird and Livingston's shatter gap model (CM1 did).

[Chibot Mk IX]

check this

 

[Vacillator]

5 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The CM1 games leaned heavily on WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery by Bird and Livingston. Most CM2 results are still very close to their data but it appears BFC have migrated away from that in some areas. For example, CM2 does not use Bird and Livingston's shatter gap model (CM1 did).

I bow to your knowledge my friend .  And to the Tiger in your profile - is that 131 at Bovington?

[Vacillator]

4 minutes ago, Chibot Mk IX said:

check this

Excellent.  I remember reading that at the time, but had forgotten it, thanks for the reminder.

[Vanir Ausf B]

54 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

And to the Tiger in your profile - is that 131 at Bovington?

Yep, that's the movie star.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I miss Rexford (Lorrin Bird from the above referenced WWII Ballistics)

[Traitor]

On 2/6/2024 at 3:56 AM, Anthony P. said:

Basically, anything he reads in original Soviet documents, he takes at face value with supreme confidence. It seems he doesn't realise the point of studies beyond those he is already capable of, i.e. translations.

While I agree that the methodology in those examples are ridiculous, I don't think that using Soviet documents is automatically a bad idea, not that you were saying that was the case of course, I understood you as saying that he cherry picks the finding from the studies that are in line with his pre-existing beliefs without considering the proper context etc, but I just felt like I should expand on the point of Soviet sources.

When it comes to sources and documents from non-allied states like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, there is a tendency to dismiss all the data as inherently unreliable which isn't necessarily the case. After all, these countries were doing tests to collect data for their own military development, there is an incentive to collect accurate data that can help when designing their next tank or planning out future tank doctrine. It's a generally a bad idea for engineers to make up nonsense test results to send back to the ministry knowing that that bogus data will be used to design the next generation of tanks, that would ironically be much more deserving of punishment than simply reporting that the current equipment isn't up to snuff.

What people should be looking at is the type of sources. Official press releases, state news, personal accounts, biographies and anything else intended for public consumption are not always the most reliable of sources and can include a great deal of propaganda, I would take them with a grain of salt even if they were written by the Allies. However, a declassified technical report meant for internal consumption within the ministry of defense can generally be assumed to be relatively accurate, in this case they need accurate data, they are perfectly capable of conducting accurate tests and there's no real incentive to make stuff up if the data was not meant to be publicly released. Like you mentioned, the Soviet helmet report did indicate that no usable conclusion could be drawn due to the flawed methodology, indicating that they were actually trying to collect usable data instead of just trying to show that their equipment was the best. For WW2 primary sources a good rule of thumb is that primary sources intended for internal consumption within the government or military tend to be at least fairly accurate as that was the information which the decision makers relied upon to fight the war, while primary sources intended for the general public can generally be assumed to include elements of propaganda.

I don't know much about this Samsonov guy in particular, but from what I've read in this thread he translates Soviet primary sources, but tends to draw flawed conclusions from them. In this case, my suggestion would be to take his conclusions with a grain of salt and for people to look at the translated primary sources instead, consider the context in which those sources were written to gauge their reliability and draw their own conclusions from the sources.