King Tiger

[M Hofbauer]

but according to the previous statements it was the KwK 43 data which was way out of line with all other guns which fit the formula, if I understood you all correctly. Currently we are discussing whether the KwK 36 projectile had a lower weight than previously assumed. IThis is illogic with sentence 1, because it would have to be the KwK 36's data that would have to collide with all the rest, not the 43??

Just wanted to emphasize that I am not going to kill anybody over this issue, my ill attempts at phrasing a contribution above might not have made this clear. Like Steve pointed out before, it doesn't really matter that much in the game anyhow. So, it might as well be 10.2kg for you, and 9kg for me. Hell I won't even be loyal to the 9kg if you put me under pressure, there's no flaming to be expected from this end of the copper cable. No no, u-uh. Everybody, see our former board philosopher's most wise words in my current signature below.

peace!..erm...(seems unfitting for this board)

Markus Hofbauer

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

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

[originally posted to wrong thread]

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

John,

With respect, this is the "kind" way of looking at the previous debate. We felt, and I think justifiably so (judging by who got more support at the very least) that we were being put on trial as heretics because our data disputed some rather commonly cited numbers. We forwarded as one possible reason for the discrepancies, that the conflicting data was suspect and perhaps in error. This is not an outlandish claim to make, especially in light of the rather drawn out debate about testing standards and validity that has followed.

The crux of the debate came down to our scientific approach vs. a disjointed and non-scientific response. We stuck to our claim that a challenge had to be scientific to which we received strong statements that science and physics were not to be trusted if they were in conflict with unconformable and unverifiable test data (or at best contradictory). I can tell you that we quite honestly know what it must have felt like for the early scientists who were brought before the Church to answer for their heresy. You know, like the Earth revolves around the sun, the Earth is round, etc.

In spite of this, we still do not maintain that CM is necessarily infallible. However, the onus is on the challengers to come up with a scientifically based counter case to the way things work in CM right now. If this can not be done, then CM (and us personally) should not be subjected to heckling and catcalls from those who have failed to present a sound counter case. And like it or not John, that is EXACTLY what has happened in both threads concerning this issue.

It really is that simple.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Markus,

Nothing wrong with your questions, presentation, or the implications it would raise if determined to be correct. I only wish the previous debate could have started and ended with your tone. It would have been enjoyable as well as educational. The other thread tried hard to course correct towards the end, but I guess due to a lack of new information (at least for the moment) it petered out.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Markus,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So I assume you are referring to the FlaK 36.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the FlaK36 and FlaK37 use the same gun barrel and same ammunition, so either one is fine for purposes of our discussion. And all my notes pertain to standard armor-piercing projectiles (i.e. Pzgr39), not tungsten-core rounds.

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

OK, so you're saying:

FlaK36 = 10.2kg

KwK36 = 9kg

KwK43 = 10.2kg

I think I see where the confusion is coming from. In Jentz's Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two, page 245 shows the FlaK18 and FlaK37 as being able to fire two kinds of AP projectiles (which agrees with your source that mentions two types). The earlier type ("Pzgr") is 9.5kg, but the later type ("Pzgr39") is 10.2kg. The KwK36 is also shown here as firing a 10.2kg ("Pzgr39") projectile.

And Jentz goes on to say (p.246) that "The 8.8cm KwK36 was a version of the FlaK36...it fired the same ammunition as the FlaK18, 36, and 37."

So the FlaK36 can fire two types of AP: 9.5kg and 10.2kg. The KwK36 shares one of those types, the later-model and heavier 10.2kg Pzgr39.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just wanted to emphasize that I am not going to kill anybody over this issue<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles

[M Hofbauer]

Charles, your post seems to be an answer to a question that I had formulated for myself.

OK, so you're saying:

FlaK36 = 10.2kg

KwK36 = 9kg

KwK43 = 10.2kg

not quite. what I (my sources, rather) am saying is that

FlaK 36 uses (X) and 10.2kg, whereas (X) < 10.2kg

KwK 36 uses 9kg (and possibly (Y) ? - whereas (Y) might be 10.2kg)

KwK 43 is using 10.2kg

I did see the problem that the FlaK 36 apparently used a 10.2 kg projectile as a standard projectile, however that since the KwK 36 and the FlaK 37 ..erm.. 36 fired the same ammo, at least in the AT department, then the KwK should have a 10.2kg too. I contemplated this and the solutions for this contradiction I came up with were

a) the FlaK 36 used the KwK 36 9kg projectile and a 10.2kg projectile that for someunknown reason was not used by the KwK

b)the PzGr. 39 somehow "evolved" from the early 9kg type to the late 10.2 kg type.

I had reached for myself the conclusion that a faint white ray of light of truth shone upon more than it did on a).

your posting that

The earlier type ("Pzgr") is 9.5kg, but the later type ("Pzgr39") is 10.2kg.

directly goes inline with that. thank you for that info.

OK, so we have two regular AP projectiles, the lighter one and the heavier one. Case solved? no, because...

HOWEVER...

the german tests AP performance of the KwK 36 (100mm at 1000m etc.) are using the 9 kg projectile, at least they do here in my sources.

This would also make sense because then the difference between the L56 and the L71 AP performance wouldn't seem so off (this doesn't prove anything but would be a nice side-effect as an indicator). It would also make sense because such test-firings occur very early, and maybe they just took the AP data from the FlaK 36?

Hmm, well the problem isn't solved yet, but it has shifted to a new area, and in the meantime I learned something. There's nothing better than a healthy exchange of ideas and data (wait - let me re-phrase that, my wife might be reading this). Thank you, Charles.

There are german books available which specifically deal with the different ammunitions etc., cross-sections and all. Maybe they can help. I will try to see if I can obtain those, but it'll take time, they might be out of print etc.

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

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

[edited to fix AP typo of "100mm at 10000m" *g*)

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

[aka_tom_w]

Wow this thread actually sounds constructive!

Other than rooting for the underdogs here that are trying ( I think ) to demonstrate that the way CM currently models the long 88 as lacking in penetration capability, I really have nothing of any significance to add to this discusion.

no ranting, no facts or data, nothing really

but that Markus Hofbauer fellow sure does have some new interesting German first hand historical evidence to share so I hope he keeps it up.

Keep up the good work guys

-tom w

[M Hofbauer]

just want to set the record straight that the original comparison (between AP performance increase between 7.5cm/L48-7.5cm/L70 and 8.8cmKwK36-KwK43) made by Charles was done assuming that the mass of the projectile fired by KwK 36 and KwK 43 was the same, and that my point was that the tests for the KwK 36 used a lighter projectile which would explain the difference in AP performance.

If indeed the two projectiles were of the same weight then his reasoning and the conclusion that the AP performance of one of the two seems way off (presumably the KwK43 (L71) being rated too high rather than the KwK 36 (L56) too low) is obviously completely reasonable.

btw: I have a cross-section/sketch of the PzGr. 39/43 - 8.8cm of the KwK 43 here, however I cannot find the one for the Pzgr. 39 - 8.8cm (KwK36 and FlaK 18/36, 36 and 37 *g*). The difference in composition and makeup would maybe help in determining how much they were alike, esp.in the mass aspect. Maybe they were almost identical, like the 7.5cm projectiles in the L48 and L70.

Anyone having a cross-section of an 8.8 FlaK or Tiger I AP projectile/shell?

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

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

[Paul Lakowski]

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

just want to set the record straight that the original comparison (between AP performance increase between 7.5cm/L48-7.5cm/L70 and 8.8cmKwK36-KwK43) made by Charles was done assuming that the mass of the projectile fired by KwK 36 and KwK 43 was the same, and that my point was that the tests for the KwK 36 used a lighter projectile which would explain the difference in AP performance.

If indeed the two projectiles were of the same weight then his reasoning and the conclusion that the AP performance of one of the two seems way off (presumably the KwK43 (L71) being rated too high rather than the KwK 36 (L56) too low) is obviously completely reasonable.

btw: I have a cross-section/sketch of the PzGr. 39/43 - 8.8cm of the KwK 43 here, however I cannot find the one for the Pzgr. 39 - 8.8cm (KwK36 and FlaK 18/36, 36 and 37 *g*). The difference in composition and makeup would maybe help in determining how much they were alike, esp.in the mass aspect. Maybe they were almost identical, like the 7.5cm projectiles in the L48 and L70.

Anyone having a cross-section of an 8.8 FlaK or Tiger I AP projectile/shell?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That unfortunately assumes that increasing striking velocity is directly linear to increasing penetration, which it is not. This depends striking velocity and projectile nose shape as well as the density relationship between projectile and target and the relationship between the projectile & target yield strength.

[PzKpfw 1]

Yes Steve I prolly was being to kind, but I'm more interested in getting the KwK.43 issue resolved, one way or the other, so I'm nudging for a truce between ppl, who for whatever reason feel, they have been offended, rightly or wrongly, to put it aside & move on. No more jabs etc, as everyone involved has something to contribute that might come in handy later down the road, that might not be contributed if ppl can't put it aside.

I don't know why you felt that way, it was never my intent to prosecute BTS, I love CM, I thought that was evident from the ammount time, I & others have spent here.

I never saw much support either way, more a drop in & look to see what was new, I think a few got the wrong impression as well from not reading the entire thread. But I do think that thread turned into an very imformative one, as some very good rare data was passed along on armor, penetration LF tests production methods etc, if anything ppl will be able to find alot of info they probably never saw before in the thread.

Consider also I am not trained in the way a scientist think's I deal with things in a real world way, to me If I make a claim, out here I have to support it, so I expect the same in return see my point?.

I was never exposed to this way of thinking that if I make a claim, its up to everyone else to prove me wrong. This is NOT a knock vs BTS's stance, this is an attempt to pin down why some ppl percieve, the thread took a tail spin, only a few of you are scientist's as in trained to think that way. But now I better understand the diferences in our arguments & I hope you see where I am comeing from as well, in trying to understand BTS's position.

I have always conceded that Charles & you had valid points concerning this issue, as I believe rightly or wrongly we did to, something just isn't right, concerning this.

Its not a question of who is right but an attempt to find an truth or an middle ground to see why the documented results concerning the KwK.43 are so diferent, as I have said before if Charles ends up correct & it was an overstatement by Wa Pruf, Krupp, etc; I'll be right here, saying great job.

Hopefully we will have some more new info tommorow or Friday as well, just need permision to post it from the sender.

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).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi John,

You can think of this more like a court case. The defendant (which is us for sure) is presumed innocent until such facts come to light that reasonably (civil case) or beyond a shadow of a doubt (criminal case) prove otherwise.

Just like in the courtroom, the strength of the case against the defendent is judged on its merrit and cohesiveness. The less solid, the more ambigious, the less plausible... the less of a chance that it is correct.

Although this is not a coutroom, I thought this analogy might help you understand 1 important thing. And that is:

The person/s presenting a challenge needs to have a strong case, otherwise they "lose" by default.

If such a case presents itself, and on balance is stronger than the one we have already established (i.e. coded up in CM), then changes should be made. But until such time, what we have must be assumed to be correct. As I think you can see now, a coherent counter claim to the way CM models ballistics and armor penetration has not been presented. So the question of which is right can't even be asked at the moment.

Steve

[Combatboy]

I know no one cares what my biology professor says (heck, even I don't sometimes -- I think I am getting a C in his class), but when I thought the science thing was stupid I asked him what he thought. The professor teaches one class at SPJC and works for some medical company making drugs so he is not some scientist guy that you are so upset about, just wanted to add that (you probably have to be pretty swift to be a medical researcher or I guess people will keel over dead when they take your drugs if you are not).

Anyway, he said the same thing! He said it is like a court case, and the defendent is the current thinking, and the persecutor is the new thinking, and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the new thinking is worthy or else the most you can do is cast doubt, and that makes people real upset because it is like telling the world that someone raped their dog then saying, umm.. I can't prove it, but he did. (The prof did not add the raping dog, I just thought his example may be to out there for you all).

He gave me a book to look up on it, and after I read it I will post what it says.

Thanks for listening!

Tom

[Guest Big Time Software]

Markus,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the german tests AP performance of the KwK 36 (100mm at 1000m etc.) are using the 9 kg projectile, at least they do here in my sources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. The KwK36 penetration numbers in Jentz (which match the numbers you presented) are listed along with the 10.2kg projectile. Hmmm. So I guess these sources just disagree? I'm not sure what else to make of it. I'll poke around to see what else I can come up with. I hate it when two "trusted" sources have different data!

In fact - other than what you've posted here - I haven't been able to find any evidence of use of a 9kg projectile from the KwK36 at all. I think the 9kg was used only by the FlaK weapon (and even then, only in the very early years, apparently). At least that's as far as I was able to determine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are german books available which specifically deal with the different ammunitions etc., cross-sections and all. Maybe they can help. I will try to see if I can obtain those, but it'll take time, they might be out of print etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. Please let us know if you find anything interesting. Thanks for the research!

Charles

[Guest Big Time Software]

Members of the viewing public, I wish to demonstrate for you that Paul Lakowski is what is known, in the American vernacular, as a "Johnny One Note". This means that he is the sort of person who does or says the same thing over and over and over, so many times, that his actions become absurdly predictable.

In Paul's case, his "one note" is that he does not read what other people have to say. He simply ignores anything that does not agree with his preconceived ideas. You can say things directly to him, and he will completely ignore them, claiming you said A when you really said B, even though the thread which precedes his post entirely contradicts his statements and is there for the world to see.

So, Ladies and Gentlemen, children of all ages, I present for your entertainment yet another example of Paul Lakowski's willful ignorance of what has clearly been stated for the record.

Paul said just above:

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

That unfortunately assumes that increasing striking velocity is directly linear to increasing penetration, which it is not. This depends striking velocity and projectile nose shape as well as the density relationship between projectile and target and the relationship between the projectile & target yield strength.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He said this referring to my original example comparing relative increases in penetration between the 88 L/71 and 88 L/56 versus the 75 L/70 and the 75 L/48. Note Paul's particular criticism for my apparent lack of understanding that the relationship is not linear.

And here is what I actually said!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is a simplified example, of course, and one cannot expect purely linear results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me repeat that, so that maybe, just maybe even Paul Lakowski will see it this time: One cannot expect purely linear results.

Is that clear enough for you Paul? Are you listening this time? Perhaps it is time to start paying attention now.

The entire text of my post can be found at http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009258.html . It's the one that begins with "I do not doubt the authenticity of Jentz' numbers".

Please Paul, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Can you please just start reading what you see here instead of ignoring it? Otherwise talking to you is just pointless, although sometimes it is hilarious.

And that, Ladies and Gents, is a Johnny One Note par excellence. Nobody does it better than Paul!

Charles

[Gen-x87]

After reading that article I wonder.

Lets see if I shoot something with a 152mm gun at 500 meters and with 4 of them no less, and it causes cracking that armor must be crap.

Then when I shoot it with smaller munitions ( 122mm shell)after the onsluaght of a large shell and it causes more cracking and even holes I cant imagine why. Then get this, a american 76mm shell actually penetrates it after the 30 or first shells failed. What were the germans thinking? After all by that time they were vastly outnumbered. I guess they should have alloted for at least 60 direct hits from high caliber shells.

I mean jesus on one the pics I see a 63 next to a hole, I can only imagine that means the 63rd penetration. Maybe if they would have taken 63 Tiger IIs and shot each one once then lets see how the outcome is. Not 1 Tiger II and shoot it over 63 times and call it not King.

Maybe what they should have done is line a Tiger II and Sherman up at 400 meters with thier front armor facing each other and then fire 1 shot and see who wins. I doubt the Sherman will have a turret left.

I for one am glad the Germans never got the King Tiger rolling early in say 1943 cause it would have been very very ugly.

Anyways in CM I have yet to lose a King Tiger Eventhough I do have a knack for getting my Tigers knocked out by wimpy Shermans

Gen

[Combatboy]

That may be unfair to the guy. He does seem to not read anyones posts, but he may not reading his native language. I bet it is like me after a year of Spanish, I can figure out how to ask for a beer (and they do not card in Yucatan!!!!) and if I can use the bathroom, but if somebody told be my bus was leaving I might think they were saying how much they liked the food. I cannot imagine trying to understand a Spanish chat group.

Maybe someone can cross post in the language he speaks originally? That may be a nice thing to do. Then it wont be so hard for Vanir and Slapdragon and BTS to communicate with him.

Thanks for listening!

Tom

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom,

Paul reports that he hails from Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Charles

[Valera Potapov]

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

I understand it clearly.

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree Ukranian = Russian and Russian = Ukrainean. You don't trust me? I may ask to come to this forum many thoroughbred Ukraineans and they confirm my point.

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

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). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me! Do you ever heard about Kiev Russia(Kievskaya Rus')? It was a large and rich country in IX-XII centuries (it was plundered and sucked by Mongol hordes). In 1650th Ukraine and Russia interflowed (signed the Pereyaslavskaya Rada) and become a single country. Et cetera.

May be I should tell you about Georgia & Russia history, uh? Or Laltvia & Russia? Or something else?

Please, do not judge things you know little about (this is not strictly for you, rather for everyone who're talking about Russia & USSR)

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would suggest you (and everybody) drop this and come back to the history of tank development

[Combatboy]

Ouch! I sure am not a rocket scientist. I guess they speak English in Canada .

Maybe BigTime should program a pop up box that shows the previous guys posts when you post your stuff. Or for me, I would like a pop up box that said, "is this post stupid?"

[Combatboy]

That is funny -- I wish my Grandfather could hear you calling him a Russian. Sort of like me calling you a German because they almost owned Russia! Or calling an English person a Roman cause Rome used to occupy them (don't believe that one? Rome really did occupy England!)

So you are saying that anyone who Russia beat up becomes a Russian? I guess someone needs to tell the Finnish that they are Russian. Or did they beat the Russians up so they are not Finnish!

By the way, my grandfather (Mom's dad) is from Estonia and he hates Russians (he is also a bigot I mean he hates Russians so bad it is scary, but he is my Grandpa, what can you do) so this means he hates himself? I would tell him he was Russian but he would have a stroke and die.

Now I am not really Estonian because the rest of me is nothing (who knows where they came from) but I think that it is really weird to call everyone the Soviet Union conquered Russian.

Thanks!

Tom

[This message has been edited by Combatboy (edited 09-28-2000).]

[Combatboy]

PS-

I would invite Granddad on to argue this point but he thinks these games are silly and he would probably get me banned from this list, and then I would miss my favorite soap opera, As the King Tiger turns.

Thanks!

Tom

[Guest Big Time Software]

Valera,

Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I am familiar with Russian history, going back to the Golden Horde invasions. Perhaps not as much as you do (I would expect this), but I did receive my degree in History (European).

I also think it is a bad idea to speak so strongly for such a large group of people. The history of WWII shows that the Ukranians did not want to be either Soviet or Russian. 10 million were starved and worked to death by Stalin before the war, many actively fought against the Red Army during the war, there were anti-Soviet partisans in operation all the way into the 1950s, and as soon as the Soviet Union's central power started to crumble they formed their own republic.

Obviously there is shared language, history, and culutre between the peoples of the region. But to say that Latvians think of themselves as Russians is kind of hard to belive. I know some Latvians that would certainly take issue with this since they fled Lavtvia because of Russians...

Steve

[RMC]

Valera,

I see you think it absurd that someone who is not a Russian would be capable of distinguishing between the various nationalities the comprised the USSR or of having an informed opinion on the subject. Some of us have resided in the USSR and have seen first hand the fabled non-russian peoples. If Russian is synonymous with the other nationalities then why were there 16 republics? If ukrainian = russian for you then does estonian also equal russian, uzbek = russian, etc?

Eesti rahvas ei ole vene.

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 09-28-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

I thought it was As the Turret Turns ?

Charles

[Paul Lakowski]

I was digging through a mountain of ballistics engineering journals looking for formulas and its going to take some time to boil each formula down to a communicate able level.

In the mean time I can clear upthis discussion we had earlier about tank targets with multiple holes as valid targets.

They are in fact valid targets. In a test of sub ordnance 2.5 :1 L/d[ length to depth] Ogive uncapped steel projectiles striking various steel targets @ ~ 400-800m/s with T/ds of 1:1 & 4:1 and plate hardness of

300- 520 VHN.

The researchers report

"6 to 8 shots were impacted on each plate [23 projectile diameters on each side]. It was also ensured that the centre-to-centre distance between any two impact craters on the plate was at least 4 times the diameter

of the projectile , while the distance from the impact centre to the edge of the plate was at least twice the projectile diameter. Whenever these distance criteria were not met, the craters were not considered for

further analysis."

Source ;THE INFLUENCE OF PLATE HARDNESS ON THE BALLISTIC PENETRATION OF

THICK STEEL PLATES . Int.J.Impact Engng. Vol-16 [1995], pp 293-320.

So most of the shots on the Tiger -1 and the King Tiger where infact valid test shots.

BTW here's one slope penetration formula for now.

Int.J.Impact Engng Vol-22,pp 100-381 ;[pp172]

Ratio of penetration loss due to slope = [1-(plate thickness/LOS Thickness)^2]

So 10cm @ 60° = 1-{10/20}² or 75% loss = 2.5 times the LOS

[Aussie Smith]

Folks

I think we should all have Vodka and calm down. Race discussions can get really nasty real quick and it serves no purpose - and no matter who is right - we all loose by it.

Na zdorovie towarishtchi (to your health comrades)

Craig