German armour penetration overstated?

[kipanderson]

German armour penetration overstated?

Hi,

For those with my interests these have been good times. Not only have we got the stunningly realistic CM but when I asked Charles how he calculated his armour penetration figures he was kind enough to post up the name of the British Ordnance Board document he used so that I could obtain a copy. John Waters and Paul Lakowski were then good enough to chip in with the names of more research documents that would interest me, as I say good times.

One of BTS’s claims to fame is that as a result of Charles’s work they use more accurate penetration figures than any other game and that part of this is that they are calculated on a “consistent basis” within any given nation and between the different nations. As with everything else they have certainly delivered in this department. However, when I went through the figures in detail I did find that the German penetration figures were a little generous, that Charles had been some what harsh on some US guns and when it comes to the poor old British 17pdr he had been spectacularly unkind.

Given the data for the exact diameter of a projectile, the exact mass of a projectile and the velocity it is possible to calculate penetration figures on a “consistent basis”, which is what I have attempted to do. The reason you cannot use the official figures from the various nations is that they used different definitions of penetration and different qualities and types of steel plate as targets. Even within one nation’s figures there may be differences. It is also important to note that a penetration figure of 100mm for a given gun, at a given range, only means that 100mm is the average or midpoint in a large range of possible outcomes. In what follows the penetration figures are for a given gun at a range of 100m against steel plate at 30degrees from the vertical. I have used such a short range so that it is reasonable to use muzzle velocity as my figure for V in the formula I use. I make no attempt to calculate the penetration figures in the “raw”. What I mean by this is that my starting point, or constant in my calculations, is a given figure of Charles’s, say the penetration figure for the German 75mmL48 gun of 108mm and given this figure I calculate whether the figure Charles uses for say the British 17pdr is reasonable.

I cannot use just one of Charles’s penetration figures as the constant in all my calculations because the formula I use does not handle changes in diameter accurately enough, in my opinion. For example for a gun such as the 57mm 6pdr I use as my starting point Charles penetration figure for the 50mm Pak38 and not the figure from the 75mmL48 gun, and so on. The three constants I use for different size guns are Charles’s figure for the 88mmL56 gun of 119mm, Charles’s figure for the 75mmL48 gun of 108mm and lastly for smaller guns Charles’s figure of 75mm for the 50mm Pak 38.

The formula I use is the Milne-de-Marre formula, which handles penetration by WW2 APCBC rounds well. I will not bore people with the detail of how it works as I have posted this before but in outline this is how I go about things.

I work out the energy delivered per square millimetre by the projectile from German 75mmL48 gun, call this figure a. This is not the “raw” energy but the energy modified for penetration of armour plate. I then work out a similar figure for the projectile from the American 75mm gun, call this figure b. At this stage remember that Charles’s penetration figure for the L48 is one of my constants, that is 108mm. I then divide b by a and multiply this result by 108. This gives me a result of 77. What this means is that given Charles’s penetration figure for the German L48 gun of 108mm, on a “consistent basis”, the penetration figure for the American 75mm gun should be 77mm. In fact Charles gives it a figure of 76mm, more than close enough. In conclusion it can be said that Charles’s figures for the American 75mm gun and the German 75mmL48 gun are consistent with each other, in my view (however little that may be worth).In the table below the first figure,next to the name of the gun, is Charles's penetration figure from CM. The second figure,for example 135 in the case of the 75L70 gun, is my "consistent basis" penetration figure.i.e given Charles figure of 108mm for the 75L48 gun in my view the penetration figure for the 75L70 gun should be 135mm.

German guns.

50Pak38-- 75-- 75

75L48-- 108-- 108

75L70-- 139-- 135

88L56-- 119-- 119

88L71-- 177-- 171

US guns.

75mm-- 76-- 77

76mm-- 97-- 108

British guns.

6pdr-- 77-- 85

17pdr-- 118-- 135

The first thing that strikes me is that Charles's figures for the 75L70 are consistent with his figures for the 75L48 gun and equally so are his figures for the 88L71 gun when compared to the 88L56 gun. In the discussion there was about the penetration of the 88L71 gun I therefor go with Charles’s view that the official German figures for the L71 gun were overstated. (The reason that my figures for the 75L70 and 88L71 guns are slightly less than Charles’s is that the de-Marre formula is a little less generous than Charles’s formula with the increase in penetration as velocity increases.)

When we move on to the Allied guns differences start to open up between Charles figures and my figures. Both the US76mm gun and the German 75L48 gun deliver near identical energy, modified for penetration, to the target per square millimetre yet Charles has given the German gun 11% greater penetration. The British 17pdr and the German 75L70 guns also deliver identical energy yet Charles gives the German gun 18% greater penetration. The 6pdr has also suffered.

Whatever the actual reasons Charles has for the different figures “in effect” what he is saying is that US and British projectiles were of lower quality than German projectiles, in the case of the 17pdr very much lower quality. My view is that US and British projectiles are likely to have been of a very similar quality to German projectiles. By the second half of the war all the major players had done a huge amount of work on APCBC rounds. They all new all there will have been to know about such rounds. They also will have had lots of samples of German rounds to study going back two/four years. In short I think it highly unlikely that US and British projectiles of 1944 were of significantly less quality than projectiles from Germany. Before assuming any country had technology very much below the “going rate” I feel one needs to have “compelling and consistent” data to support that view. Others may have that data but I have not come across such evidence with regard to US and British projectiles.

Before leaving you all alone I thought I would just include the penetration figures for some of the most common Russian guns as it only takes another ten minutes of schoolboy maths to produce them. The Russian figures are produced in the same way as the US and British penetration figures, i.e. on a “consistent basis” with Charles’s figures for the 50mmPak38, the 75L48 and the 88L56 guns. If you hold the view that Russian projectiles were of lower quality than German projectiles then you should decrease the following figures by whatever percentage you feel is appropriate. As before these figures are for penetration at 100m against 30 degree armour plate. The quality of the plate being the same as that used for Charles’s figures in CM.

Consistent

basis.

Russian guns.

45mm,model42-- 66

57mm,model43-- 106

76.2mm,model42-- 81

85mm,model44- 120

As there often is discussion of the quality of Russian projectiles it would be a bit perverse to post figures on a “consistent basis” without giving an opinion on Russian ammunition quality. My starting point is that no one set of data from WW2 test firings should be given too much weight as one does not know the exact quality of the target plate in such tests, even if the surface hardness figure is given. It is also worth restating that there is a very large range of outcomes when dealing with armour penetration and therefor the test outcome one has the data for may not be an “average” figure over a large number of rounds.

The normal assumption is that Russian projectiles were of lower quality than German and western ammunition. The main reason why this is normally assumed to be the case is that the “official” figures the Russians produced themselves and used in their wartime manuals showed lower penetration figures than one would expect given the energy delivered by their projectiles. However as is pointed out in a massive 1947 document I found in the archives of the Bovington Tank Museum “it is know that the Russians calculate their penetration of armour figures by a more pessimistic formula than that used by other powers”. In the document the British always give the above “health warning” with regard to the quoted Russian figures but at times they also give the British Ordnance Board’s estimate of what the true penetration figure is for a given gun on a western basis. When they do this the figures they come up with are slightly higher than the “consistent basis” figures I have given. They do discus Russian ammunition quality but only indicate that the Russian tungsten core ammunition was of lower quality than western ammunition. They are very specific about their reasons for reaching this conclusion. They claim that Russian APCR ammunition had a less efficient aerodynamic shape and that penetration would therefor fall off quicker. It is also worth noting that German test results on the BR350A APC round, fired from the Russian 76.2 Model42 gun and the T34/76 tank, showed it to have the same penetration as one would have expected from German ammunition delivering the same energy. The test results showed a penetration against 30 degree plate at 500m of 75mm. Given the velocity, mass and diameter of the BR350A round this is what one would have expected from a German round with the same specification. (John Waters kindly posted the figures regarding the BR350A round in another thread.)

There is also evidence pointing to the fact that Russian ammunition was of lower quality than German ammunition and that therefor the figures I have given should be rounded down. The important point is that not all the evidence points one way.

There is no certain, correct answer to the question of Russian ammunition quality. It will remain a matter of opinion and there will always be disagreements. (In my view this makes the subject even more interesting.) However my view is that over all there is more evidence suggesting Russian ammunition was of somewhat lower quality than there is suggesting it was of the same quality as western ammunition. I would round down the “consistent basis” figures I have given for Russian guns by between 5%-10% in order to give the most likely “actual” penetration figures for Russian guns. To round down the Russian figures by more than 10% would, in my view, be to ignore evidence such as the German tests of the BR350A and the views of the British Ordnance Board when considering these very questions. The British Ordnance Board of 1947 being better judges of APCBC ammunition than any of us can hope to be sixty years later.

Thanks for your time,

All the best,

Kip.

[This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

This is an excellent presentation of data and theory -- perhaps the best one I have seen on the board. You should be commended for trying to come up with a cohesive argument and laying all your facts in the window.

This thread may fall to the bottom of the batch, but Kip has presented: 1) A cohesive argument, 2) The has external consitency, 3) which minimizes use of debatable data without throwing it out all together and 4) is presented in one place with a clear view into his thinking. Unlike previous attempt to get at this same idea - Kip has presented a picture that can now be coherently argued, and has the benefit of presenting new formula in abstract to correct what he sees as problems.

This does not mean he is automatically correct, it merely means he has made a serious effort at building an argument, and one that should be praised.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 10-01-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

Excelent post Kip as always. More to think on, & more comeing 8P.

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 10-01-2000).]

[Wilhammer]

You know, if the German units are slighted in any way, what an uproar we would have.

This weekend, it has been shown that a good chance exists that the Allies, especially the Americans, have been slighted across the board.

Perhaps it is besy we put the whole "Allies are slighted" thing to rest, as it apparently is so trivial, no general concern is forthcoming.

[Slapdragon]

Bill,

There is definately a core of German only players who rely on playing Germans to suceed in contest matches. Most Ladder players have played them and some of them are on this board. Still, while you have shown a 10% price / capability diference in infantry, and the same seems to hold true for tanks, that is not enough to totally tip the scales, just make playing most allies more difficult aganist Axis at similar point levels.

Any attempt though to rebalance the game on a more even scale would, as you say, have those same players who rely on exclusively playing Germans burning down the board. It is probably better that we just turn your evidence into a web page and then let Grog balance it out themselves.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This weekend, it has been shown that a good chance exists that the Allies, especially the Americans, have been slighted across the board.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. Kip's post, while very long and thoughtfull, is just one man's thoughts on a VERY complex and complicated issue. Yes, there is a chance there is some sort of error in CM (never said there wasn't), but the jury is still very much out. Unfortunately, I am not qualified to answer this post and Charles is kneedeep in TCP/IP code. I have asked him to comment when he has a moment.

As for "slighted" that is a rather strong word. Need I remind you that this recent questioning of CM's ballistics was the result of the data concerning a single German gun being under rated? My point is that CM has done MUCH to disolve the "Germans über alles all the time" misconceptions that other wargames (and history texts in general) have constantly bought into. If there is an error then it is a mathematical one and in no way shape or form can be seen as a "slight" on the Allies.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

BTS- / Steve

Bill is more referring to the numbers he ran on infantry which showed a fairly stable across the board 10% higher firepower at all ranges per "cost" point in German infantry, and is not really thinking "slighted" on purpose, as his other thread shows, but more likely just disadvantaged. His presentation of numbers was quite impressive. His referant is more to the people who became very upset at the thought of Germans being toned down or any suggestion that they be re examined. Some of these same people play ladder games and refuse to play allies because this 10% boost (as expressed in price versus capability of Allied infantry), while not a sure fire game winner -- make it much less stressful to play Germans and give a greater margin of error for mistakes.

You are correct though that the Ubergerman in games has been much greater for other systems. Certainly no one wanted to play Steel Panthers as Allies in tourneys when you faced any type of open terrain, and CC2 had many who likewise refused to play allies. The original SL was actually balanced toward Allies, which changed dramatically in ASL until it was rare to find anyone willing to play allies in competition (although Russians often come off better because you buy human wave stuff and then use it with a brain). CM is much better balanced in terms of unit price than these engines.

In Infantry, and possibly in armour, in terms of combat, the Allies appear by Bill's work to be weaker for the same cost. I first noticed this when I went up against people who would only play Germans. Bill only quantified it and presented it clearly.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Wilhammer]

Slighted is a strong word, but it is the word or its concept that pro-German players would take if they had "under-rated" units.

Steve, I have the utmost praise for your fine effort. It is the best wargame ever, but it is by no means the end of the line in terms of wargame developement. I play it an awful lot, I currently have 4 PBEMS underway, and my willingness to put considerable effort in "Doing some Numbers" displays a desire to see the system represent in the best way the subject it covers.

The thread Slapdragon is referring to, http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011102.html

I will gladly admit any error I might of made, but the analysis I ran does suggest some inherent inequity in point allocation between the nationalities, a problem that hinders QBs from being balanced. I feel it also impacts the Historocity of the game when a QB is generated.

As for the actual FP numbers, I have no argument with them. The US Army was fairly standardized, while the Wermacht had a collection of different TO&Es that were awesome at times and driven by the fierce inter, intra, and extra service rivalry that was endemic to the German war machine.

If I offend by presenting my case, well it is true that the essence of conversation is the argument.

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, before we debate any further... I will say VERY clearly that neither Charles nor myself are "German unit bigots". In fact, we have worked hard to dispell many of the game myths of the past. So whatever the conclusions you come to are, rule out pro-German bias because it is not there.

The way the FP is calculated is based on the weapon. So any look at total FP ratings needs to be examined at the weapon level. If you see any weapons that you think are unbalanced vs. another weapon, please specify which ones. We have had debates like this in the past and I think most have been satisfied that the numbers are "about right".

I think the only people that argued against the numbers were those that thought the MP44 (my personal favorite small arm in the world) was not powerfull enough. A strong case was made that a particular range FP rating was too low after a long debate, so we changed that one value.

I found your post (which I hadn't seen before) very interesting, but not entirely correct. I'll address points there.

Steve

[Wilhammer]

I do NOT think that the you guys are German-centric. Far from it. I am referring to those gamers that are, not you guys.

Heck, you goave us the first useful 60mm mortar in a game.

I do think the QB system could use some tweaking.

I am definitely interested in your counter-points, actually thrilled. I have not had any of my posts analysed and likely corrected by the "Best Wargame" designers ever.

[Slapdragon]

The reference about German bigots is decidedly not about you, but about people who you meet on ladders who rely on the German advantage to win. At least Bill have never expressed to me any thoughts of you being German bigots.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, thanks for clearing that up. But if you think that we have screwed up the costs and benefits of the respective squads IN FAVOR OF the Germans (which is Bill's point in the other thread) one could also tag along the theory that we did so because we are biased in favor of the Germans. Just wanted to debunk that before it started I guess

Steve

P.S. Bill, you got abou 40 minutes of my time for a response, hope you find it usefull

[Wilhammer]

Screwed up by accident is different from screwed up on purpose.

If I left the impression that you screwed up purposefully, I am sorry, for that is entirely not the case.

As I state in the other thread, my rebuttal response recognizes the correctness of your costing arrangements. The problem is the unfettered ability of the German player to buy the best all the time, and the Allied best is significantly less than the the Average type of unit available to the German player.

Perhaps we should use things like Fionn's "Rule of 75s" to include "Rules of Likely Formations".

[kipanderson]

Steve,

Given some of the responses people have made to my post I thought I had better start by confirming what I hope you already knew, that is that this is in no way meant as a criticism of CM or of you and Charles. There is no bigger fan of BTS than I am. CM is the only computer game I play, just now and then Steel Beasts and BCT make it too. The reason is that what I am after, and what you deliver in vast quantities, is tactical realism.

Everything is of stunningly high quality, including the armour penetration figures.

I just thought it would be fun to do my own “consistent basis” calculations and see what came up. And then to follow that by a friendly debate between fellow armour penetration nerds. As I say in my post the fact that there will now never be a 100% correct answer to these questions I feel is rather fun. It has never crossed my mind that there was any pro-German bias in the game.

As I say no criticism it implied it is just my two pence worth on the subject. I realise not every one will agree with me and am quite relaxed about it. One reason I make an effort to get things as correct as I am able is my respect for the knowledge of others on this forum including of course all those at BTS.

Slapdragon, hi,

I thought I would just take the opportunity to thank you for your very generous comments on my post. Its incredibly kind of you to give me such a fine write up, I will have to use you as a reference!

John, thanks also for your comments and I look forward to lots more interesting stuff from you.

All the best,

Kip.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Great post kipanderson. Especially the first one

Anyway, because the name says nothing to me, when was this Milne-de-Marre formula developed? And who did it?

After reading this and similar threads, it becomes apparent that there are many kind of armor penetration formulas available. Seems that Paul Lakowski is also working with one. Should it be assumed that the newest one is the best? At least that sounds logical.

And about bigotries:

Some people seem to suppose that Steve and Charles have favored Germans in their game. Wouldn't it be much more plausible to presume them to favor US forces as they themselves are US citizens?

Not that I have seen any mark of that.

I wonder if I myself could do such a game of the Finnish soldiers and hardware objectively. Probably not.

Ari

[kipanderson]

Ari, hi,

No, you should not automatically assume that the latest armour penetration formula is the best one. It all depends on the data the formula is based on. The study of the type of ammunition most commonly used in WW2, APCBC ammunition, peaked during that period. After the war the world moved on to other types of projectile. For example today there is a lot of study of segmented APFSDS projectiles as these will be the next thing widely used in current tank guns.

The Milne-de-Marre formula is likely to have started life around the turn of the last century when there was a lot of study of armour penetration against battle ships. It was then tweaked during WW2 into its current form. I know it works well on WW2 APCBC rounds because I produced something very similar using data giving the strike velocity and the penetration of the projectile from the Panthers’ gun as range increased. I got it in its current form from a textbook written by the staff at the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham. Guys that do this sort of thing for a living.

Paul’s formula will be great and will do what ever he has designed it to do extremely well. I look forward to seeing it.

Thanks for your generous comments on my post.

All the best,

Kip.

[Slapdragon]

I don't think they really biased anything especially on purpose -- unlike many previous game designers. The original Squad Leader took the German Heer squad from 1942 and removed out the LMG to a special unit, then faced them against a 1945 US squad with BAR integral -- a clear case of favoring the US. At the same time, other games have favored German Armour so much that to play any side in competition was suicide.

My only concern came after a test of 40 hot seat games over two months with 4 people randomly fighting each other on completely random boards fighting random sides, and finding that Germans did statistically better when everything else was random. This is not a fine enough study to say WHY they did better - but with all other variables controlled or randomized their is a small advantage German in quick battles more than is explained by chance.

So the same test with Steel Panthers and you get an almost overwhelming advantage -- so the game is much much better balanced.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

About three weeks ago I made the above post regarding the fact that , in my view, some of the armour penetration figures in CM are inaccurate.

If we take a quick look at the data for the German L70 Panther gun and the British 17pdr common sense would indicate they had a similar penetration figure.

If we start with muzzle velocity, L70 gun 925 meters per second, 17pdr 884 meters per second. When it comes to projectile mass, L70 6.80 kg, 17pdr 7.71 kg. They were of course of similar diameter, L70 75mm and 17pdr 76.2mm. Because armour penetration is more sensitive to increases in velocity than increases in mass, for a similar diameter, the 17pdr has only a fractionally greater penetration than the L70 gun, by about .5 of a millimetre. Charles’ figures for penetration at 100m against a plate at 30 degrees are L70 gun 139mm, 17pdr 118mm. Clearly there is a case to be answered.

I am a huge fan of all things CM and would not like to drag Charles away from his TCP/IP coding as I greatly look forward to sending my friends Panzers up in smoke live over the net. However in the case of the 6pdr, the 17pdr, the US 76gun and the US 57mm AT gun I do believe CM currently has the wrong penetration figures, given the figures Charles uses for the German guns in CM.

It would be a shame if Charles did not get round to checking his calculations although I know he already does huge hours.

All the best,

Kip.

[PeterNZer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bill is more referring to the numbers he ran on infantry which showed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'showed'? Well, as I recall there was a lot of debate on those numbers, and they hardly prooved anything since a lot of the conclusions were debateable for a lot of reasons.

I think if people get a woody about playing Germans, good for them. Doesn't mean that Germans have some advantage. They just has a -perceived- advantage. I have kicked booty as both sides, and lost as both sides and neither seems to be favored to me.

I think people like the Germans because they get a lot of toys to play with and can cherry pick 'better'. But I don't play those types anyway.

PeterNZ

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Kip

"Whatever the actual reasons Charles has for the different figures “in effect” what he is saying is that US and British projectiles were of lower quality than German projectiles, in the case of the 17pdr very much lower quality."

That was a brilliant logical rational presentation.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with it, as I would be interested in what your theory or formula tells us about the long range penetration of those big guns like the 17 pdr and the long 88.

anyway I did want to comment on this suggestion you make:

"Whatever the actual reasons Charles has for the different figures “in effect” what he is saying is that US and British projectiles were of lower quality than German projectiles, in the case of the 17pdr very much lower quality."

Another way of looking at this (and this has its problems too, due to the nature of its broad generality), it COULD be suggested that ON the OTHER hand Charles is modeling not the lower quality of the projectile, BUT the general overall higher quality of the Axis Armour. this could be another way of saying, the Allies had inferior armour (by about 11%) it seems from your calucalations and the Germans had superior armour, by about 11%, NOW this is a LARGE braod generality and I have EVERY confidence that Steve and Charles did not make some conscious decision to model armour penetration in this broad general way, I'm suggesting that the other side of the coin is that the armour is superior not the quality of the round is inferior.

It is my feeling that other than the fact that the game models too many misses at close range the penetration model and the result of the hit seems to be modeled quite WELL. Either that or having played CM for so long I have just gotten used to it and now feel the short range penetration model is "normal"

Great presentation of facts, data, logic and conclusions! Nice Job.

I say its the superior armour, not the inferior quality of the round that could be at issue here .

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-23-2000).]

[Dan Robertson]

Why not allow a utility where you could change the armour and gun varibles of the various tanks and guns to what ever you believe to be correct?

This would, I believe reduce the number complaints that things are unrealistic.

Obviously this would be easier to do with armour because that is a single number. With the guns you could simply put in a modifier to increase penetration by X percent of the calculated penetration.

Or would this allow players to hack the code and copy the game engine?

[This message has been edited by Dan Robertson (edited 10-23-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

Why not allow a utility where you could change the armour and gun varibles of the various tanks and guns to what ever you believe to be correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not possible, would also ruin multiplayer. A very very bad idea.

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

Andreas

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Kip: interesting post. I know there is evidence that the shape of the AP shell affected penetration differently at different angles, with a "pointier" shell penetrating more at 0 degrees than a blunter shell (or vice-versa; I don't remember which was which), but the blunter shell achieved more penetration as the angle of slope increased. Apparently at extreme slopes (>60 degrees) a flat-headed shell was most effective because it was less likely to ricochet. I also believe that various countries in WWII used AP shells with different degrees of pointiness. It would be interesting to see if the "underpenetration" of the 17-pounder persists at armor angles of 0 degrees and 60 degrees, or whether the underpenetration simply represents the reduced effectiveness of the 17-pounder AP shell at 30 degrees of slope.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I say its the superior armour, not the inferior quality of the round that could be

at issue here<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sheesh tom you've completely got the 'wrong end of the stick'. Armour quality is modelled seperately, which you should know. Penetration figures given in the game as a rough guide are against standard quality armour for all projectiles. It has to be that way because armour quality varies from vehicle to vehicle. The effects of armour quality can therefore only come into play when the target of the projectile is known. The issue is with the gun/projectile combination, armour quality has nothing to do with what kip is on about since the data is generated based on the same standard armour.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[brucer]

As someone who's done a little of this kind of stuff myself, over the years, bravo... definitely worthy of a fuller response from BTS.

I'm sure I don't need to point out though, that you only MAY have established that the Allied guns are punching under their weight; the other equally logical deduction would be that one or both of the guns you are using as constants in your ratio calculations(the German Pak 38 and 75/48) are hitting OVER theirs. Best to find some other data to seal that other possibility off, while we wait for Mr. Moylan.

As to the other suggestion, that the Allied numbers are futzed to reflect superior German armour metallurgy... I'd suggest that's just way too much of a kludge for these guys even to consider. Give them some credit: they're a class act.

BruceR