King Tiger

[Combatboy]

You know, I read it all again, and I think that Vanir has the best angle. I understand slapwagons stuff now, all he is sayin is the guys who wrote the game don't need to prove their stuff, you need to prove it -- makes sense, but maybe he is going over everyones heads the way he writes it. Vanir says, hey it kills tanks on the moon who cares. This JoePrivate comes out of nowhere and says he can't figure out the posts (read them again would be my suggestion -- you missed something somewhere -- I figured it out in an hour or so) and the rest are more interested in being right than showing your right.

The other thing is I did a search and there is another one of these things, and the BigTime software people seem to have answered a lot. Have you ever thought of just refering back to what they said? It is back a couple of weeks ago.

So maybe you should listen to this Vanir guy instead of ignoring him -- he has the best take on the whole thing.

Of course I am just a newbie, so you all may not listen, but this thing is all silly.

[Mike Oberly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This JoePrivate comes out of nowhere and says he can't figure out

the posts (read them again would be my suggestion -- you missed something somewhere -- I figured it

out in an hour or so) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well,the whole 'racism' thing is a joke-a more appropriate word would be 'nationalism',but I think that is mistaken as well.And then Slapdragon seemed to dwell on the perceived slight without even reading the posts following.

I followed the posts easily enough,but it's a bit mystifying why Slapdragon took such offense.

Mike

[Combatboy]

If it were directed at me, it would be offensive I think. I don't think it was racism, his terms are all screwed up. Not really nationalism. More like plain old bigotry. But bigotry is nothing to get all worked up over -- lots of people are bigots about lots of things -- I happen to like King Tigers so I am a King Tiger Bigot. That other guy is just a bigot against people who live in the west. I live in the west and was not offended because he was really just shooting one across this Slapwagon guy's bow. You know -- start a flame war to shut up a guy who is getting the best of you.

What is most stupid is Slapwagon should have just said I am ignoring your attempts to start a flame war and kept on with what he was saying. He was doing pretty well even though I did not understand him at first. At least the other guys lost it and started the flame things -- which in my book means they were loosing bad.

I had someone try to start a flame war like that with me on the Unreal group (I am Combatboy there too and I just e-mailed him on the side and said I don't flame dummy, and he e-mailed me and said neither do I, and now we are playing a game.

I think maybe it was just a misundertanding

[Paul Lakowski]

OK moving on I looked at the Tiger 1 mantle and BTS might be right about rating it at 120-140mm

I had a small discussion with Charles and RObert Livingston and Valera about Tiger 1 mantle and several thicks came up , the mantle thickness is 145-200mm including the overlape but the effective resistance can't be much more than 120-140mm and Valera pointed out the effectiveness of the 122mm APHE round was reduced against spaced plate due to the fact that the 122mm round detonated prematurely.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oh cripes, I should have guessed what was going on in this thread before I even read it. Nice spill over from the recently dead 88 discussion, complete with the same arguments, disjointed logic, and near complete ignoring of everything that we ever said in that thread.

Bottom line is that our findings are scientifically arrived at using the best equations and research out there. We have backed up our position (several times and in several ways) and have found our arguments neatly (and not so neatly) side stepped. As of yet there has not been a coherent and rational counter arument proposed. Best can figure the counter argument is still "the Germans said it does this, you say it does not, you are wrong".

As for the practical difference between the data in CM and the data in question cited by Jenz and others (which is not their data) has no noticable effect on the game since EITHER penetration value cuts through Allied tanks like a hot knife through butter.

If someone cares to come up with a comprehensive and scientifically backed up counter claim to our numbers, present it. Otherwise, find something more product to do with your time. And if you DO find a better system that disproves our equations, might I suggest publishing it in a scientific journal or two. I am sure the world would love to see it.

I for one am not going to waste another precious minute of my life rehasing the same BS over and over again. However, I will pop back in here from time to time and WILL close up this thread FAST if the petty bickering continues. We somehow got over that in the last thread (interestingly enough after a certain person dropped out of the thread) and it stayed open. But I'm not going to let what I have just read in the past couple of pages continue.

Steve

[Combatboy]

You just have to love the irony that Slapwagon was right all along. And I called his (her?) argument stupid Well, he is still a little crazy about the race thing but I think this has turned out like a great soap opera. I have more fun reading the silly stuff than the serious stuff sometimes.

So Slapwagon, if you are out there, I am sorry! You can do my science homework anytime .

Tom

[Valera Potapov]

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

All SOVIET testing must be looked at twice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may look at tree times, at four times. Nothing magic will happen with them.

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

I am not ware of any Russian tests presented -- although I am sure quite a few of the ballistic scientists involved in both the Soviet tests and the US/GB tests were Russian. If you are aware of any testing that was restricted to people of Russian descent, then you have an interesting tidbit, but I question why Georgian, Azerbijiani and Armenian researchers were restricted from the testing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This shows you know nothing about Soviet engineers. Nobody and nothing was "restricted". There were many Georgian, Azerbaijan, Armenian, Ukrainean, Buelorussian, Tatars etc researchers.

[RMC]

Valera,

SD was just making a rhetorical point. He wasn't actually questioning whether or why any other national groups were excluded from Soviet scientific work. He was making the point in a roundabout way that the terms Russian and Soviet are not synonyms.

His real point is that criticism of Soviet testing procedures and results should not be construed as an attack on the Russians as a people.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Oh cripes, I should have guessed what was going on in this thread before I even read it. Nice spill over from the recently dead 88 discussion, complete with the same arguments, disjointed logic, and near complete ignoring of everything that we ever said in that thread.

Bottom line is that our findings are scientifically arrived at using the best equations and research out there. We have backed up our position (several times and in several ways) and have found our arguments neatly (and not so neatly) side

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Steve has pointed out that BTS has backed up their KwK.43 data repeatedly here & we have ignored it to go off on tangents etc, I thought I'd post BTS's single post that concernes the 88 thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I do not doubt the authenticity of Jentz' numbers for the 88/71. However I think they are wrong nonetheless. They are considerabl overstated.

How do I reach this conclusion? The simple physics behind it. Combat Mission does not use "penetration tables" or charts to determine armor penetration. Instead it uses the mathematical equations described in "Penetration of Armour Plate" originally by (British) Ordnance Board Subcommittee of the Armour Piercing Projectile Committee

(reproduced by U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Technical Information Service

#PB91127506).

These equations do a wonderful job of matching up with virtually all published "penetration charts" that I've come across, save for one: the 88/71. This tells me that something was not "constant" across the

testing data. It's possible that the 88/71 was tested against plate of a differing hardness, that "success" of penetration was judged by a different standard, or simply that a bit of propaganda was being put forth.

To see why this is so, we'll take a look at Jentz' numbers for the lower-velocity 88 L/56, mounted on the Tiger I in comparison to the 88/71. But first, let's isolate a variable. To get an idea of how much

additional striking velocity increases penetration, let's compare some of Jentz' numbers that are not in contention: the 75 L/70 (Panther gun)

with the 75 L/48 (PzIV gun). This is a simplified example, but it gets the point across.

Name 75 L/48 75 L/70 Difference

Muzzle Velocity (m/sec) 740 925 +25%

100m penetration 99mm 138 +39%

500m 91 124 +36%

1000m 81 111 +37%

1500m 72 99 +38%

2000m 63 88 +40%

Note how the 75/70 has a velocity 25% greater than the 75/48, and penetration about 38% greater. Now let's compare the two 88mm

guns.

Name 88 L/56 88 L/71 Difference

Muzzle Velocity (m/sec) 773 1000 +29%

100m penetration 120mm 202 +68%

500m 110 185 +68%

1000m 100 165 +65%

1500m 91 148 +63%

2000m 84 132 +57%

The 88/71 is about 29% speedier than the 88/56, about the same as the difference between the two 75mm guns shown above. And yet Jentz' figures would have us believe that the penetration increase in this case is a whopping 65% instead of the 38% we'd expect from the earlier example!

This is a simplified example, of course, and one cannot expect purely linear results. But this clearly demonstrates that Jentz' 88/71 numbers are not even in the right ballpark.

Note also that Jentz' figures for the 88/71 are greater than those for the Jagdtiger's massive high-velocity 128mm gun! This just does not square with reality.

Charles <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Their is the the single 'answer all post' that BTS supplied us and refer back to as their example repeatedly in the thread.

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 09-27-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

sorry I've never been to the "88 lacking punch" thread (I don't like to enter threads that have grown huge already). One thing about Steve's comparison between L56 and L71 that John quoted:

Steve/BTS, your rough comparison might be valid if we were talking simply an increase in barrel length and consequently Vo etc. with the same projectile (as was the case with the 7.5cm, both the L48 and the L70, although an entirely different design, used a projectile of 6.8kg). Your comparison is invalid though, because...

HOWEVER,

not only is the round fired from the L71 29% faster, it is also a larger (=heavier) projectile. The L71 projectile (PzGr. 39/43, complete cartridge weight 22.8kg) weighs 10.2kg, whereas the ammunition fired from the L56 (PzGr.39, complete cartridge weight 16kg) had a projectile that weighed 9kg. So you not only have an increase of Vo of 29%, you also have that with a heavier projectile, an increase in mass of 13%. With same cross-section, Eo tells you more about the AP performance than Vo.

using your figures above, I calculate an initial inertia / Eo of barely 2700 kJ for the L56 projectile and 5100 kJ for the L71 projectile. Ergo, the increase in both weight and speed made for an increase in initial energy of 88%.

And here lies your answer to your question why the L71 has a much higher AP capability than the L56.

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

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[edited to include 7.5cm projectile weight)

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-27-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

Addendum:

For the comparison between 7.5cm L48 to L70, because the projectile weight is the same, the increase in Eo is only depending on speed increase, and the result is that the L70 has a 55% higher Eo.

Now, 55% (7.5 L48-L70) to 88% (8.8 L56-L71) is quite a difference from your comparing of Vo of 25% to 29%, and this increase in Eo explains why the AP performance increases dramatically. And to compare it with the AP data you listed above:

7.5cm (L48-L70): increase of Eo of 55% makes for an increase of AP of ca. 40%

8.8cm (L56-L71): increase of Eo of 88% makes for an increase of AP of ca. 65%

NOW the seemingly abnormal increase in AP performance from L56 to L71 doesn't seem off anymore, does it?

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

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[Guest Big Time Software]

John, thanks for the repost. It does much to overcome the vacuum this argument has been in since our position was not represented directly.

Hofbauer, that post was made by Charles, not me. I do not pretend to know anything about the math behind this debate. To paraphrase, "Dammit Jim, I am a Historian not a Mathematician!". Since you have posed a scientifically based question, Charles will hopefully tear himself away from TCP/IP just long enough to answer it

Steve

[Paul Lakowski]

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

Bottom line is that our findings are scientifically arrived at using the best equations and research out there. We have backed up our position (several times and in several ways) and have found our arguments neatly (and not so neatly) side stepped. As of yet there has not been a coherent and rational counter arument proposed. Best can figure the counter argument is still "the Germans said it does this, you say it does not, you are wrong".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to show you how much these forumlas come and go I'll post tonight several formulas that were developed long after Ordnance board report [75-90] along with BTS , errrr Sopwiths formula. Just to show you that there are many formulas and none of them are the be all or end all formulas.

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

As for the practical difference between the data in CM and the data in question cited by Jenz and others (which is not their data) has no noticable effect on the game since EITHER penetration value cuts through Allied tanks like a hot knife through butter.

If someone cares to come up with a comprehensive and scientifically backed up counter claim to our numbers, present it. Otherwise, find something more product to do with your time. And if you DO find a better system that disproves our equations, might I suggest publishing it in a scientific journal or two. I am sure the world would love to see it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats what we're tring to do as we speak.

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

I for one am not going to waste another precious minute of my life rehasing the same BS over and over again. However, I will pop back in here from time to time and WILL close up this thread FAST if the petty bickering continues. We somehow got over that in the last thread (interestingly enough after a certain person dropped out of the thread) and it stayed open. But I'm not going to let what I have just read in the past couple of pages continue.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OOOHHH geeez who's the "certain person"?

[Ari Maenpaa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

sorry I've never been to the "88 lacking punch" thread (I don't like to enter threads that have grown huge already).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was our loss, because you seem to have the much needed missing knowledge that may settle this topic down.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

HOWEVER,

not only is the round fired from the L71 29% faster, it is also a larger (=heavier) projectile. The L71 projectile (PzGr. 39/43, complete cartridge weight 22.8kg) weighs 10.2kg, whereas the ammunition fired from the L56 (PzGr.39, complete cartridge weight 16kg) had a projectile that weighed 9kg. So you not only have an increase of Vo of 29%, you also have that with a heavier projectile, an increase in mass of 13%. With same cross-section, Eo tells you more about the AP performance than Vo.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, your explanation is very good and comprehensive. Thanks.

Just one thing to be cleared up: Jentz in his "Tiger Tanks" states that pzgr39's shell weight is exactly same for both 88-guns: and that is 10,2 kg. Is this typo?

Ari

[Valera Potapov]

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

Valera,

SD was just making a rhetorical point. He wasn't actually questioning whether or why any other national groups were excluded from Soviet scientific work. He was making the point in a roundabout way that the terms Russian and Soviet are not synonyms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a Russian, I must say I completely disagree. For me everything Soviet means everything Russian. I believe this is a far-fetched questiod "developed" by journalists who knows nothing about Russia and USSR.

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just to show you how much these formulas come and go I'll post tonight several formulas<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great. It will be refreshing to see something solid to counter our position.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just to show you that there are many formulas and none of them are the be all or end all formulas.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If one goes back and reads every line of the previous thread, they will not find one thing in there that states that the equations used in CM are infallible. What you will see is a lot of resistance to our approach being dismissed as flawed without adequate scientific grounds for such a claim. You will also see several statements were we WELCOME scientifically based evidence that exposes some flaw in the way CM currently works. But as of now this has not happened by a long shot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OOOHHH geeez who's the "certain person"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not my problem if it is so obvious. If the shoe fits...

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Valera, I'm not trying to cause a fuss here, but I think you are not understanding the statements you are commenting on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a Russian, I must say I completely disagree. For me everything Soviet means everything Russian. I believe this is a far-fetched questiod "developed" by journalists who knows nothing about Russia and USSR.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I agree with your statement to a large degree, it is not in fact correct. If it were, it would mean that nothing that any other nationality did during the history of the Soviet Union influenced what the Soviet Union was. Although it is obvious that the Russians had the most influence and direct control, I do not see how it is possible to arrive at the conlcusion that the sum total of other repbulics involvement as part of the Soviet Union had no affect on it.

Also, there is a fundamental problem with the logic that all things Soviet are all things Russian, and the reverse. Some simple logic to illustrate my point:

A=B, C=B, therefore A=C

Russian = Soviet, Ukranian = Soviet, therefore Ukranian = Russian.

I know Ukranians, Georgians, Chechnians, Latvians, etc. would have a big problem with this because it would mean that their national identies and cultural histories are the same as that of Russia since they were a part of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union is only Russian (that is your position as stated). As hard as the Russians tried to in fact do this (like moving 100's of thousands of Russians into the Baltic states), nobody can argue that it totally worked. Therefore I propse that the true statement is:

Everything Soviet is mostly, and to a large degree, Russian. Everything Russian is mostly, and to a large degree, Soviet.

Steve

[M Hofbauer]

Ari,

I still haven't been to mentioned thread, but I assumed everybody was aware that...

the KwK 36 (8.8cm L/56) and KwK 43 (8.8cm L/71) were two entirely different gun designs using entirely different ammunitions.

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

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[Guest Big Time Software]

M Hofbauer,

I understand your point about the increased penetration due to mass. My comments were based on the fact (?) that the 88mm KwK36 L/56 and 88mm KwK43 (and PaK43) L/71 projectiles have the same mass. Both are stated to be 10.2kg in Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two (Chamberlain, Doyle, Jentz).

However, it's worth noting that German Artillery of World War Two (Hogg) states that the 8.8cm Pzgr Patr 39/43 projectile used by the 88mm PaK43 is 10.16kg, but that the 8.8cm Pzgr Patr used by the 88mm FlaK37 is 9.5kg.

This 9.5kg value is close to your value of 9kg. But my understanding is that there are differences between the KwK36 used in the Tiger I and the FlaK37 antiaircraft gun, and projectile mass may be one of them. So perhaps this is where confusion arises? My earlier commentary was based on the Tiger I's KwK36, not on the FlaK37. Your statement about 9kg projectile mass seems to refer to the FlaK37. I just want to be sure you're looking at the ammunition for the same weapon that I am.

But if anyone has evidence that the KwK36 indeed used a lighter projectile than the KwK43, please let me know. Right now in CM they both use a 10.2kg projectile.

Charles

[RMC]

Valera,

I can see why you might fell that way as a Russian and a member of the dominant nationality in the old union. Many people in the West use the terms Russian and Soviet interchangeably too. But in my brief travels in old USSR I met non Russians who were very adamant about their non-Russianness and some for whom the whole question of nationality was moot. But they were all Soviet citizens.

In any case the criticism of Soviet reports as stated is based on the shortcomings of the Soviet governmental form, real or perceived, and not some sort of national character flaw of the Russian or any other nationality of the former USSR.

On another note I found a handy quote which seems to sum up the 88L71/CM ballistic formula debate/discussion thus far:

"...they had attacked these without bring able to replace it with anything of consequence or thorough....They only had one consequence: they made everyone unhappy."

[Jeff Heidman]

People need to take things just a teeny bit less seriously.

Someone pointing out a flaw, whether they are correct or not, is not an "attack" on anyone.

Further, the validity of a given argument against something is not dependent upon whether or not the person making the argument has a better solution. If someone claims that the acceleration due to gravity is -105.65 m/(s^2), I can show him to be incorrect without the need to provide a correct formula.

Pointing out a perceived flaw in Combat Missions is not a personal attack on Steve, Charles, you, me, my mother, your cat, or his sister!

You would think we were talking about the historical existence of Christ with the level of dogmatism and animosity in these two threads.

Relax.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 09-27-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff, what you said *should* be true, but sadly it is not. Check out the older 88 thread (blanked it from my memory I think ) and see where this new debate has its roots. If the people questioning the figures did so in a consistantly logical, rational, and above all RESPECTFUL way this debate would be enjoyable.

You are only partially correct about disproving something without having to come up with something better. You can disprove the validity of something scientifically derrived by presenting counter scientifically derrived evidence. In this case the data to disprove CM's equations is either a comprehensive and scientifically sound presentation of the test data, or a different equation that produces more plausible scientific outcomes. The problem here is that test data is highly suspect no matter what country it came from. So using test data ALONE will not get you very far since much of it contradicts each other and the testing conditions are not necessarily well documented. Hence why it is most likely necessary to have a different set of equations to disprove the ones we are using.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Ari,

I still haven't been to mentioned thread, but I assumed everybody was aware that...

the KwK 36 (8.8cm L/56) and KwK 43 (8.8cm L/71) were two entirely different gun designs using entirely different ammunitions.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and according to sources Ie, Jentz & Spielberger both the KwK.36 & KwK.43 APCBC & Pzgr.40 ammunition all weighed the same, 10.2kg for APCBC, & 7.3kg for APCR. Your data shows a diferent weight then then the material we have been using.

Regards, John Waters

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

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

[M Hofbauer]

Charles,

I understand your point about the increased penetration due to mass.

good. I always find it hard to express/copin into words a concept in english. I _am_ glad to see that you understood what I meant.

My comments were based on the fact (?) that the 88mm KwK36 L/56 and 88mm KwK43 (and PaK43) L/71 projectiles have the same mass. Both are stated to be 10.2kg in Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two (Chamberlain, Doyle, Jentz).

wrong simply because there is no "88mm KwK36 L/56 - projectile". Different munitions existed for both guns. More below.

However, it's worth noting that German Artillery of World War Two (Hogg) states that the

8.8cm Pzgr Patr 39/43 projectile used by the 88mm PaK43 is 10.16kg, but that the 8.8cm Pzgr Patr used by the 88mm FlaK37 is 9.5kg.

This 9.5kg value is close to your value of 9kg. But my understanding is that there are differences between the KwK36 used in the Tiger I and the FlaK37 antiaircraft gun, and projectile mass may be one of them. So perhaps this is where confusion arises? My earliercommentary was based on the Tiger I's KwK36, not on the FlaK37. Your statement about

9kg projectile mass seems to refer to the FlaK37. I just want to be sure you're looking at

the ammunition for the same weapon that I am.

There were only six FlaK 37 ever produced, it was a subvariant of the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36 for use on the 18t-tractor chassis.

So I assume you are referring to the FlaK 36. Among the munitions for the FlaK 36 were two types of AP projectiles. I only have data for one of those types which says the projectile weight is 10.2kg.

The AP ammunition for the Tiger I's KwK 36 L/56 were the Panzergranate 39 and Panzergranate 40. Pzrgr. 40 was the tungsten version, so we will disregard it for the moment.

The Panzergranatpatrone 39 had a total length of 870mm and a total weight of 16kg. The projectile weighed 9kg. AP performance according to german tests 100mm / 1000m. Production of 8,8cm-Pzgr. 39 in thousands per year: 21.2 (1942), 324.8 (1943), 394.8 (1944).

The AP ammunition for the Königstiger's KwK 43 L/71 were the Panzergranate 39/43 and Panzergranate 40/43. Pzrgr. 40/43 was the tungsten version, so again we will disregard it in this discussion.

The Panzergranatpatrone 39/43 had a total length of 1125mm and a total weight of 22.8kg. Weight projectile 10.2kg, weight propellant charge 6.8kg. Not only overall length was different, shell casing length with 822mm was longer, too, so that the two munitions for KwK 36 and KwK 43 could not possibly used in the respectively other gun. AP performance according to german tests 165mm / 1000m. Production of 8,8cm-Pzgr. 39/43 in thousands per year: 825.9 (1943), 1139.0 (1944), 20.0 (1945)

The data is from Fritz Hahn's excellent work "Wafen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945", ISBN 3-7637-5830-5. He had been responsible for weapon development and aquisition in the Heereswaffenamt (german ordnance board) and therfore was involved with many Waffenprüfämter and copnsequently nearly all weapon developments and procurements. His work is a post-war write up of the many original documents he secured from his work. I have nothing personally against all the english books on the subject, but I have come to trust and depend upon "my" Hahn for authentic, first-hand info on any german WW2 issue.

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

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[PzKpfw 1]

I think the debate on the KwK.43 was carried out very well to date. BTS made a bold statement publicly admitting they believed the KwK.43 LF test data was exagerated etc, and as with all bold statements it spawned a controversey over who was/is correct, BTS believes they are scientificly correct, some of us want quantification.

My whole point in getting involved was the claim I thought B TS had evidence the actual LF data was incorrect and I wanted to see it. I think some ppl got their feathers ruffled that shouldn't have on both sides of this, & remarks were made that shouldn't have been Ie, conspiracy etc, were uncalled for, as one example.

As for respect I think that goes both ways you give it to get it, its never automaticly given, regardless of your status etc, & in heated debates it can get left out completely.

The percieved tone from text can also cause problems & I think that more then anything has caused some misunderstandings as well especialy between two of the people here as they both seem to get on each others nerves, as evident by their exchanges, which affects any useful discussions as when either makes a valid point neither will put aside their animosity to recognise it.

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 09-27-2000).]