King Tiger

[Slapdragon]

I also find American published data on many military subjects suspect and would avoid test data published without first looking closely at their assumptions. One manual we unearthed at TMC discussed the safe diving depth of the Los Angeles as "in excess of 200 feet." Anyone who buys that is silly, more like "in excess of 800 feet" and possibly much much deeper in emergencies.

The fact is many of the traditional Soviet abuses of the manufacturing system were simply not open to public scrutiny like the west. Even minor manufacturing problems in the west become known, even if in the classified trade press, and are quickly set to rights, but manufacturing problems in the Soviet Union were all on the censors list of even the highest level of the Soviet military industrial complex.

Then you have the issue of testing. Basically, you can do it two ways, right and wrong, perhaps adding different shades of rightness or wrongness if you want. There is really no "Soviet way of testing" and "American way of testing" like there is a "Soviet way of making tea" and an "American way of making tea." testing of any problem involves a distinct set of steps that you either follow or come up with worthless data.

The report in question at http://history.vif2.ru/library/weapons7.html shows a set of weapons tests on an in place vehicle and bases it conclusions on those firing tests. The report does not report a hardness number for armor plate tested. The report has a nice set of claims about unreliability that I would take into account with a grain of salt, but would probably give the nod to because it follows other reports of motive problems with the King Tiger but not too serious a nod because we do not know that the crew had ever been training it King Tiger upkeep and repair. The subjective shortcomings are probably the most valuable data in the report (or the part that is given to us). A simple look at their methodology of shooting the tank full of holes makes this report unnacceptable.

Still, it makes a good beer and pretzels argument if nothing else And the pictures are funny.

Now, data with photographs of the first shell firing would be useful.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

An example of shoddy testing is what they did to that King Tiger. If they had really wanted to test it, they would have cut it apart and done a series of armor tests in static test rigs - done impact hardness tests -- done all sorts of lab tests. This is exactly what the US did with Soviet tanks and led to the adoption of the L7 105mm. Parking it out in the field and peppering it with repeated shots assures that only the numbers for the first hit were valid as armor looses its stregnth with penetration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slapdragon on what are you baseing your opinion on that they didn't take an Tiger II, out rip it up, and do a series of static armor tests?.

We don't know exactly what they did at all, till more info is released,every nation in WW2 tested enemy tanks in LF tests as well it was common. We don't even know if thats the full report. Well a long time ago we had a Russian armor author at Tanker's who ansdwered our questions on Soviet testing of their ammunition with BHN etc, but I have no idea where he is now Paul might.

Another example of upgunning due to the examination of a tank was after the Soviets got their hands on an Iranian M60A1 that its crew delivered while defecting, the Soviets tested it, and found the armor was of a better quality then expected from their earlier examinations of US armor with the M26 etc, they had aquired earlier and upgunned accordingly.

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 09-22-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

I actually know they did not test the armor on the tank whose picture are shown : If they did it would be cut apart instead of shot apart, unless Soviet steel anealing process were real advanced back then. And in the excerpts from the report they do not mention it. They claim to have tested a KT in 1944 but no data is offered in this piece. In science, you become a skeptic to keep from publishing tripe like "The Bell Curve" by Hernstien and Murray.

Not a critique on PzK whom I do not think is this way, but in an era with crystal power, psychic testing, herbal remedies, personal angels, and "trickle down economics" science has been lost on many, and turned into a dirty word by most. If I claimed my personal angel told me the resistance factor of german armor I would be believed much more readily than when I apply skeptical inquiry into a subject. If I do a replicable experiment I can get slammed by people whose knowledge of science comes from Star Trek -- not because they do a counter experiment, but because "that is not how the world works".

To judge any empircal study you must know: What model is being tested (in this case penetration on the KT), what factors get fudged (if they ignore humidity in the tests I can give them a pass because humidity in theory would only change penetration a small bit), and precise details on how the test is set up, plus some definitions like what is the definition of penetration? (Sound silly, try and come up with a definition of "violence" for a study on television psychosomatic effects that sticks and covers all the bigger bases).

Then I present my data. How far away, what angle, and what charge. If you don't read it in the report, it is not always so-- you have to be skeptical and assume it is not so, and if the report is not the internal report or in a peer reviewed location: (Example: Journal of Soviet Ground Forces) then you judge its aegis for possible fudge factors. And yes, a US armor test may be just as biased if it is in the wrong venue. Look at the 1981 US Defense data used by the White House and the 1981 ISS data for that same year and you will see that bias in a public report intended to make the politicos happy compared to a peer reviewed defense study.

Also, just because this report is flawed, more like "fun fun on the range", does not mean the Soviets never did good work. They launched people into space afterall, and had an industrial society. It just means that many reports from the USSR are redacted, worthless, or missing (no real Freedom of Information act there), and the source and validity needs to be looked at closely in addition to the scientifc merits of the report.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

I actually know they did not test the armor on the tank whose picture are shown : If they did it would be cut apart instead of shot apart, unless Soviet steel anealing process were real advanced back then. And in the excerpts from the report they do not mention it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never meant did they test that Tiger B's used in the LF test. The British didn't either Slappy, they dragged a portable poldi to the feild & used it, before the live fire test began, only 1 Tiger E was ever cut up & put through static tests etc, and the samples were studied by the British & then sent to Watertown Arsenal in the US, for tests.

I asked how you were so sure they didn't run any stat tests, as they did capture a bit more Tiger II's then just the 2 they had their, notice as well that 1 KwK.43 was removed & sent to another dept for testing.

Exactcly that report is either not de classed yet, or buried, I'm sure when someome stumbles on it they will get it to a site, till then saying what they did or didn't do is, merely speculation.

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 09-22-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

I never worry about people who don't use there real name, and I find that what people really know about a topic is inversely proportional to how much they talk around a subject .I guess your a scientist who thinks that since he knows something can speculate about a unrelated field[ always a dangerous thing]. I know something of how plate weakness occur upon penetration and know all about penetration definitions.

But since your coming in with a head of steam I suggest the following ..go to Valeras web site Dgroup and ask him. If your rude he will quite rightly ignore you. If you engage him in dialogue and push this rubbish about russian tests being unreliable he'll also ignore you [ again quite rightly as another ignorant westerner].

But if you talk to him you might find the answers you seek.

Anyway I'm away until Wednesday, and we'll see if you've learnt any thing by then.

[Los]

I would tend to view recently declassified internal documents of Soviet field testing to be as reliable as UK or US field testing done at the time, not that any of those would hold up to modern standards of testing. WHile you could sit here all day long an poke holes on the testing based on this or that procedural error I wouldn't draw a blanket conclusion that because it's soviet then the stuff is automagically BS.

Likewise I don't find US or UK propaganda stuff released for public consumption during WW2 to have any marked increase in reliability over Soviet propaganda.

And finally a lot of the data used and accepted nowadays as historical research on weapons effectiveness in WW2 against this or that armor was performed in the exact same wasy as the Soviet tests. I have in my possession original copies of lot of the US tests and it's is done in field conditions against captured vehilces in some cases quite a haphazard manner. A good friend of mine works for the archives and regularly sends me interesting stuff he digs up on such matters.

Los

[Slapdragon]

Starting a flame war because you cannot debate scientific fact is a great method of argument Mr. Lakowski. My name is Steve Jackson as I often post and my web page is posted also, along with my academic affiliation. I do not rub crystals to come up with data, and I don't debate people who do, so I have no need to talk to your friend. I am having an intelligent argument with Mr. Waters on scientific critique, not spewing racist east/west garbage. If you desire racist discussion: start a new thread clearly marked as a racist topic line so you can attract like minds.

First: there is no eastern science or western science, only science. My office mate is Russian, two people I work with are from China, and I work closely with a Korean and they all use the same method of critique. I can write four languages. west or east is not an issue, the language I write in is not the issue and does not change the way the world works. Science is, and it is a universal constant.

Second -- I cannot critique on theory out of my area, but I can read a science report: as many educated people can, and I can tell when it does not meet scientific muster. This test does not. It is for show -- worthless, not useful -- meerly propoganda - flawed, and in the end, merely a window ornament.

Now away from the childishness and back to the debate!

-----------

Mr. Waters -- you have to understand that although I am now a historical researcher, I was trained in scientific method and my partner is a scientist. I read her articles without knowing much about what she is talking about but can critique her because all science is written in a similar manner -- and all argument is couching in similar "rules of evidence". You try to avoid the "gut instinct" and "everyone knows", and even "my professor said" when debating science. You go on evidence presented, replication, and method.

Rules of evidence are:

1) Never assume something that has not been tested.

2) If it isn't spelled out it isn't so.

3) All studies are flawed, but many flaws can be lived with (for example testing at 20 C and 30C will likely not increase or decrease results by an order of magnitude, so you let it slide).

4) Definition changes context.

5) References to past work without citation is the same as no reference at all.

6) Paradigms change with proof

So -- maybe they did do a hardness test, but we cannot assume they did. In fact, we assume they did not unless they give us some data and a reference to the report. This is very important in skeptical inquiry. For example, can I assume they did a test of dropping the KT out of a plane at 10000 meters to see how far it bounces? Can I assume they did a test to see how many ping pong balls fit in the tank. Can I assume they did a test to check the number of electric fans the D/C system will run? Science is consistant, so if I assume they tested hardness, I have to assume they tested all of these things. And if I assume they have a hardness number of the armor then I can assume that 36 thousand ping pong balls fit inside, that it bounces 17 meters, and 17 electric fans can run off the D/C.

Now, prove me wrong!

Even if they did it still would not make this test a valid one, and if the British did the same test it would be wrong, and if the FBI lab did the same test it would be wrong - and if I had a King Tiger and treated it in a similar manner, it would also be wrong.

Read further in the site and you will find some interesting reports on weapon quality -- each highly invalid because they are reports of findings, not of studies. If they provided the data set, definitions, theory, and background of the test I would then change my mind and critique it based on the question, did what they do simulate what the real would is like well, and was it performed in a useful manner with internal and external validity? If I concluded yes, then I would accept the report and not even have to understand the theory.

Is science perfect? Of course not. But I cannot assume something just because it makes sense, I have to have facts.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-22-2000).]

[Guest rune]

Easy enough...I sent a letter to Val and invited him here to the forum. Don't know if he will come here, or answer, but at least I will try. Also asked for the bhn value of the armor IF they tested it, and asked if they did any static test firing on the armor.

Rune

Unrelated topic... From Bovington. Anyone know ANYTHING about this book Hal Hock was working on before he died?

I can't think of anything we have here that would resolve this query. The

late Hal Hock found an impressive archive at the Ministry of Defence in

London which, he was told, would eventually transfer to the Public Record

Office but I have no idea of its current status. Hal died a year or so back,

leaving a massive project on weapon performance nearly finished. A friend

told me that he was going to see it published but again I have heard no

more. As far as I am aware weapons testing in the UK was not done in the

Bovington area, nor specifically for the benefit of the Royal Armoured

Corps. It would have been done at a general service establishment, probably

Shoeburyness, for general distribution, which is probably why the results

were not lodged here.

[Slapdragon]

A BHN number and a table of static test data would go a long way to helping this. Does not make a picture of a KT shot full of holes valid, but would help validate at least the findings that they did if supported with a little bit of background.

As for American and British tests done in a similar manner, as I said, I would not consider them any better, nor would I bet my farm on their numbers. I prefer the method that BTS came up with and that is use SOTA understanding of ballistics and armor penetration and back date it to WW2 era. We do that after all in testing ballistics of black powder weapons. No one fires at pine boards anymore (at least for testing) they have much better methods of finding out BP penetration.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Rules of evidence are:

1) Never assume something that has not been tested.

2) If it isn't spelled out it isn't so.

3) All studies are flawed, but many flaws can be lived with.

4) Definition changes context.

5) References to past work without citation is the same as no reference at all.

6) Paradigms change with proof

Now, prove me wrong!

Is science perfect? Of course not. But I cannot assume something just because it makes sense, I have to have facts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slap err thats been my whole point, you assumed they didn't do any static tests I commented that assuming they did or didn't is pure speculation, until we have proof 1 way or the other.

And yes Slap the above is how the US, UK, & USSR performed live fire tests, they used a portable poldi to establish plate BHN etc & then plonked away, usualy recording initial MV & penetration results, you can see some examples in the 88 Lacking thread.

So basicly we agree that assumptions are a no no .

Regards, John Waters

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

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

[Slapdragon]

I agree so closely to you Waters it is rediculus, and you do not use the racist invective of others on this list which is adult and refreshing.

Now, I have the sorry task to disagree with one small point. Lacking data on a test, you cannot assume the test was done at all. You have to assume it was never done. That is the way all testing works. The reason is, and I have fallen into this trap and gotten killed in peer review before, if that you always assume the negative in research unless the positive is demonstrated. Even our terms like "rejecting the null" follow this procedure.

So a document that has a BHN number with a valid methodology would be good if associated with this test (does not make the shooting trial valid - it is still a tank shot full of holes, but would let us compare the KT armour to other armour).

[PzKpfw 1]

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

So a document that has a BHN number with a valid methodology would be good if associated with this test (does not make the shooting trial valid - it is still a tank shot full of holes, but would let us compare the KT armour to other armour). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the British static tests on the Tiger II placed the glacis at 220 BHN and noted the decline in armor quality the same as the Soviet determination. Ie:

*During lab tests of the "Tiger-B" tank's armor, conducted at TsNII-48, it was noted that there had been an "evident gradual

decline in the quantity of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the

exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the "Tiger-B's" armor. An advantage of domestic armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleably."

This would indicate they did do some tests on the armor composition. But again without the complete TsNII-48 report were left hanging.

British feild poldi test data gathered in the LF tests is very close to German data Ie, the British feild poldi tests on the Tiger E put the nose plate armor at 102mm compared to the German data at 100mm. In some areas British results are 10% higher then the US static test data on the same examples, Ie, the T-34 & KV1.

An important thing to note is much of the static test reports have never been published its taken the research work of affiando's like, Robert Livingston etc, to dig up these reports & get them available to ppl who are interested.

Whats interesting is:

* The penetration capability of the 71-caliber long 88 mm KwK 43 gun, with its muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s for its armor-piercing projectiles, was 165 mm at a 30 degree impact angle at 1000 metres. In particular, the "Tiger-B" projectile went completely through the turret of its "colleague" at a range of 400 m.

The Soviet test data @ 1000ms for the the KwK.43 is identical to the disputed German Wa Pruf test data KwK.43 @ 1000ms @ 30^ results.

*See: Tankomaster #6 1999 or:

http://history.vif2.ru/library/weapons7.html

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 09-23-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

That data is very interesting. When multiple testers find the same thing it means they are seeing something similar.

With that sort of data you could begin building an alternate pen model if you could rationalize the data on BHN face/ BHN shell, pen character, and other data into a unified theory.

I think that is what Steve was looking for was a unified theory based both on math and test data to explain penetration.

[Valera Potapov]

Gentlemen!

I would like to comment some moments mentioned here.

1. Some people do belive the report states King Kiger was penetrated was faked for propaganda purposes.

This is nonsense since the report was Top Secret 55 years so far. Therefore, it cannot be considered as propaganda. When Thomas Jentz wrote his (excellent) book, this report was still secret and that's why he didn't mentioned it.

2. About penetration abilities of Soviet 76-mm and 85-mm guns and US 76-mm guns. I would like to suggest you this link: http://history.vif2.ru/library/weapons6.html

Although there is no US 76-mm gun but US 75-mm gun with the M72 round instead.

3. Th report you're discussing doesn't contain any figures about KT's armor hardness. The other report, however does: according to the NII-48 report of December 8, 1944, the hardness of the KT's frontal hull was about 218-221 BHN.

4. Almost everything about armor production/tests is still secret in the Russia. For example, parameters of the T-34 armor are Top Secret. So, don't blame the Russians they didn't conduct armor tests. In fact, they DID. However, the results are secret. I hope one day the "Top Secret" stamp will be removed and we will read many interesting facts.

[Berkut]

Lets take a breather folks and consider the problems of field testing.

If you have only one tank with which to blow holes in, then eventually due to fatigue in the metal, any high velocity shell is going to go straight through.

There may not have been a better way of conducting the test but it still a flawed method.

One also has to consider the quality of the metal. How good was German steel during the last years of the war?

There is also the flawed testing regimen. Consider the American Mk14 torpedo. Captains would come back from patrols reporting a large number of duds. The company accused the captains of incompetence, after all their tests showed the torpedo worked fine. It would take a long time before someone realised that the tests for that torpedo always involved head on hits on stationary target ships, never at angle or at a moving ship.

when these weapons hit a ship at angle the detonater pin would would buckle preventing the warhead from exploding.

So when considering the test results, we have to ask how many of these tests against the Tiger B, were conducted on the front of the tank? How many against the flanks or the rear?

What type of shell was employed? solid/tungsten? HE? HEAT?

Then finally we come to the political nature of the contry taking the tests. The problem is that the soviets did (and still do)doctor information to suit the temperement of the person receiving it, after all who would be the one to tell Stalin the bad news concerning the unreliability of soviet built weapons?

The soviets did invent spin doctoring before anyone else

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

BERKUT

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest rune]

Val,

Thank you for taking the time to answer. Do you have any information on the 88L71 other then what was in that report?

When was that document released? Thank you for posting it and thank you for a great web site.

Rune

[Slapdragon]

The goal then is to take data that is useful, or at least flawed in the same manner (4 countries get the same data is better than one), and come up with a mathematical formula that works under most circumstances. Remember: our goal should not be to make the 88L71 the biggest baddest gun around, but to scientifically as possible present a collated body of information that supports a new theory of ours on how armour penetration works.

A formula would work like this (this one is bogus so do not just reuse it.)

Armour Penetration (%) = 100/ SQRT(BHNa/mv*.3BHNp)/1/6ang and define all the variables. Remember, it does not do any good just to say that this gun should be tougher, we need to explain penetration in a way a computer can understand it, and in a way that any projectile entered into our formula works, AND in a way we can support by data.

Also remember that tables without explanation of how they were derived and faulty tests unless get a range of faulty tests is not good enough to support an arguement. If you want to take this to BTS and say here is our math we have to have a good arguement, they have spent a couple of years actually putting things into math.

What you are doing if you follow this is putting together a cohesive argument that holds together theory and application. I will not be the only one throwing stones at data and methods, everyone will be.

Judging sources of data:

1) Is it primary or secondary (did they do the test, or are they reporting a test someone else has done)

2) Classified data is no good unless you can get it. I can claim that they used moon rock armour on a tank and how can you refute.

3) Test data without methodology is worthless.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Vanir]

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

Whats interesting is:

* The penetration capability of the 71-caliber long 88 mm KwK 43 gun, with its muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s for its armor-piercing projectiles, was 165 mm at a 30 degree impact angle at 1000 metres. In particular, the "Tiger-B" projectile went completely through the turret of its "colleague" at a range of 400 m.

The Soviet test data @ 1000ms for the the KwK.43 is identical to the disputed German Wa Pruf test data KwK.43 @ 1000ms @ 30^ results. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Slapdragon:

3) Test data without methodology is worthless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is the problem here. Exactly what were the Russians firing at? The above quote that John mentioned seems to suggest the Russians obtained this data from firing one of the KTs at the other. The only part of a KT that is sloped at exactly 30^ is the rear hull, but that's only 80mm thick. If the Russians were firing at test plate what is the BHN?

OBTW, my name is Michael Graham. Middle initial B. References available upon request.

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

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Just to amplify Vanir here, I have posted some of my own documents.

Proof that US cannons make better daisy holders than German:

Proof that the SS used Hamsters in their OST Battalions:

Of course, the source of these documents in Russia is a good source, and as test methods are released it will be great to see them. I am only making a point about the need to remain skeptical in scientific discourse.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Berkut]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Of course, the source of these documents in Russia is a good source, and as test methods are released it will be great to see them. I am only making a point about the need to remain skeptical in scientific discourse.

[This message has been edited by Slapdragon (edited 09-23-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the other point is for us all to stop taking this too seriously

Thanks Slapdragon for that timely slap in the face

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

BERKUT

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Vanir]

LOL!!

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

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Valera Potapov]

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

Do you have any information on the 88L71 other then what was in that report?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

Why do you asking? There are a lot of books and magazines describe this gun in detail.

[Guest rune]

To sum it up, there is a thread here, the 88L71 which is being debated. Almost all the guns fit a math formula, except the 88L71. Your document, and others, show the 88L71 having between 140-170mm at 1000 yards and 30 degree angle. What they are looking for, is documented proof of the angle, the bhn of the test plate, and anything else about the test of the 88L71. Penetration values are what they are mainly interested in.

Thanks

Rune

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valera Potapov:

Hi,

Why do you asking? There are a lot of books and magazines describe this gun in detail.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Paul Lakowski]

Excuse me Steve[thanx atleast now your a name], there's no flame war unless your conducting one. You where the one who implied that since it was a Russian tests it couldn't be trusted. So don't go accusing me of racism.

And as for this continued reference to "rub crystals "???? Steve explain your self, this must be some new scientific testing method I've never heard of

Lets face facts here we don't know much about the test method ,so no conclusion can be drawn either way, if you choose to be sceptical thats you problem. We don't know much about the impact of previously penetrated plate, so there's little debate to have- period.

It might surprise you to note that in one test of plate penetrated by capped AP shot the loss of resistance was only about 5%.

No one here seems to understand the extent of how penetration criteria changes the published results, so results from other countries test can't be properly indexed.

No one here seems to understand how % chance of penetration is indexed to the published penetration values and yet they can state that this data is right and that data is wrong. When the difference from most of the results could easily fall with a standard deviation of each other .

The implication runs very deep, I've been told- by BTS- that their formula works even though it has problems predicting angled impact[most cases]. No one has told me what set of data proves there penetration formula works .

Theres no science in BTS formula unless it can be varified by test results. But all the test data is flawed by the standards you present so the formula can't be proven or disproven....nice touch

Instead of arguing why don't you go out and read the journals...theres tons of them about and maybe then we can have an intelligent discussion.

[Valera Potapov]

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

To sum it up, there is a thread here, the 88L71 which is being debated. Almost all the guns fit a math formula, except the 88L71. Your document, and others, show the 88L71 having between 140-170mm at 1000 yards and 30 degree angle. What they are looking for, is documented proof of the angle, the bhn of the test plate, and anything else about the test of the 88L71. Penetration values are what they are mainly interested in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps I will find the whole text of those report (I don't have it now). However, you must understand there was a big difference between SOviet and german menthods for penetration tests. Very approximately, the difference was 25%: the armor considered to be penetrated if al least 50% of a shell happened to be found behind the armor. The Soviets used 75% value.