Are King Tigers Modelled Correctly?

[Redwolf]

As few suggestions:

People should stop taking single events like "my Sherman toasted the King Tiger at 500 meters". CMBO models weak spot penetrations (with 1% chance of all hits), so single events are by definition covered by than, and noone has a problem with that.

Steve, can you give me a clue what the good 95mm HC penetration numbers come from? Less rotation is the only thing I can imagine. I cannot find any info on the rifling of this weapon, somehow it is less covered in the literature than the 88

I don't think that combat reports will be useful for the 95mm versus Tigers, since they probably never shot at one, penetration or not.

Iron chef, it is a matter of politeness to read a forum before posting to it. There are zillion of threads that would make it clear to you that all other people in this thread have read all the compat reports you read, and obviously much more.

[jshandorf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

[QB]As few suggestions:

CMBO models weak spot penetrations (with 1% chance of all hits), so single events are by definition covered by than, and noone has a problem with that.

QB]<hr></blockquote>

But when this happens you actually see the text say "Weak Point Penetration". Otherwise it is a normal hit and penetration.

Anyway... In a future remake of CMBO I would love to see Armor Quality ratings be more variable for BOTH the Germans and the Allies.

As for the armor modeling... I have always had a gripe with some of the modeling in CMBO, especially gun hits, but after you get beat over the head enough arguing your point you just give up after a while.

Jeff

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Sorry, according to Hap Arnold's bio he estimated less than 30%. The book "Cab Rank" peddles a figure of 50% and is the highest responsible figure I have ever seen although it is actually high. The major Tactical study on the subject "Tactical Air Command: Policy and Success 1942-1945" gives an ETO rate of 35%, plus a book on the 814th TD command commented that tactical air, while effective, made up around a third of tanks kills.

Please cite your own source for 90% of all tanks killed by aircraft in ETO 1944-45), I would be interested in reading it since even the modern Allied airforces did not get that in the Gulf War.<hr></blockquote>

well i'll state the easiest source for you to find, the history channel actualy had a show on it and that wher ei got my 90% figure, from the historians they had on it. there are many other places you can find it as well, you have ot read more then a few biased books, and there are plenty, just keep reading, dont come across one random guys opinion and carve it in stone, you have to look arounbd, i found many comicla books written by marine so and so who claim the japanese were no match for himm and his 3 buddies balh blah blah. i even read in the local paper last year around here of a veteren of world war 2 who basicly got evey medel and had tons of war stories of great things he did and finaly last year it was discovered that everything he claimed was false and he actualy never was even near any of the battles that took plave let alone accomplished all the heroic deeds he claimed, so don't trust every "true acount"

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Sorry, according to Hap Arnold's bio he estimated less than 30%. The book "Cab Rank" peddles a figure of 50% and is the highest responsible figure I have ever seen although it is actually high. The major Tactical study on the subject "Tactical Air Command: Policy and Success 1942-1945" gives an ETO rate of 35%, plus a book on the 814th TD command commented that tactical air, while effective, made up around a third of tanks kills.

Please cite your own source for 90% of all tanks killed by aircraft in ETO 1944-45), I would be interested in reading it since even the modern Allied airforces did not get that in the Gulf War.<hr></blockquote>

also i did not say all tanks, i specificly was refering to the heavies with the 90% figure

[Wreck]

Steve, this thread is not like others where you have tangled with Jason and others. In this one, he has set the bar almost laughably low:

Quoting Jason:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

No penetration of a KT from the side by a bazooka exists in WW II combat records. Specific examples exist of bazookas failing to penetrate them, under battlefield conditions and also in firing range tests.

...

In CM it [the British 95mm HEAT] is one of the most effective tank killers in the game, able for instance to reliably kill Tiger Is from any aspect, and Panthers everywhere but the upper front hull. I know of not one combat AAR of 95mm HEAT accomplishing either feat on the battlefield. The 95mm support tanks were not thought of as super tank killers at all.

<hr></blockquote>

Steve, all you need to do to "win" this one for the CM HEAT formula is to find a single instance of a bazooka killing a KT. Or, you could find a single instance of a 95mm gun killing a Panther or Tiger from the front.

Now KTs were pretty rare, so reports about bazookas and them might be hard to find. But I would think it very likely that the Brits would have figured out that their 95mm could kill the big cats handily, and they would have used the 95mm tanks accordingly, and left records of it.

[Maastrictian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

well i'll state the easiest source for you to find, the history channel actualy had a show on it and that wher ei got my 90% figure, from the historians they had on it. there are many other places you can find it as well, you have ot read more then a few biased books, and there are plenty, just keep reading, dont come across one random guys opinion and carve it in stone, you have to look arounbd<hr></blockquote>

I think that the name of an actual book might be a bit easier for Slapdragon (or anyone else) too look up, rather than an entire television chanel. Even providing the name of the specific show, or perhaps the names of the historians in question would be helpful.

Of course a book reference, author, title and page number preferably, would also be a big help. Better than just telling us to "look arounbd"

--Chris

[Madmatt]

Let me just step in here for a moment and throw some nice cool water on everyones face as things appear to be heating up a little bit. I leave the hardcore ballistics issues to Steve but I make sure threads stay nice and civil and this one is getting to be a little "iffy".

So please keep your comments non-flamatory and above board. Thanks guys.

Madmatt

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

well i'll state the easiest source for you to find, the history channel actualy had a show on it and that wher ei got my 90% figure, from the historians they had on it. there are many other places you can find it as well, you have ot read more then a few biased books, and there are plenty, just keep reading, dont come across one random guys opinion and carve it in stone, you have to look arounbd, i found many comicla books written by marine so and so who claim the japanese were no match for himm and his 3 buddies balh blah blah. i even read in the local paper last year around here of a veteren of world war 2 who basicly got evey medel and had tons of war stories of great things he did and finaly last year it was discovered that everything he claimed was false and he actualy never was even near any of the battles that took plave let alone accomplished all the heroic deeds he claimed, so don't trust every "true acount"<hr></blockquote>

This may be, but source credibility is not an issue unless I or others can examine the source.

[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

well i'm not going ot hold your hand thru it, if your realy interested in ww2 wich you seem to be you'll come across it eventualy just a matter of time, i don't feel the need to prove facts when thats what books are for. i don't mind if you won't take my word for it, you'll read it for yourself eventualy,not a big deal, this is a cool forum. mabe you can find a fast reference on the history channel website i dont know, i would give a few book titles if i could rmeember the exact names of them, i havent read any books on this for a long time

[Andrew H.]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

well i'll state the easiest source for you to find, the history channel actualy had a show on it and that wher ei got my 90% figure, from the historians they had on it. there are many other places you can find it as well, you have ot read more then a few biased books, and there are plenty, just keep reading, dont come across one random guys opinion and carve it in stone, you have to look arounbd, i found many comicla books written by marine so and so who claim the japanese were no match for himm and his 3 buddies balh blah blah. i even read in the local paper last year around here of a veteren of world war 2 who basicly got evey medel and had tons of war stories of great things he did and finaly last year it was discovered that everything he claimed was false and he actualy never was even near any of the battles that took plave let alone accomplished all the heroic deeds he claimed, so don't trust every "true acount"<hr></blockquote>

The SOP for dealing with lone Panthers was to use 5 Shermans against it. This is very different from losing 5 Shermans per Panther taken out. There is no real evidence to support the view that this happened. You can find a couple of AARs describing 5 Shermans attacking a Panther (I think there's one in the US Army's history of the Lorraine campaign); the Panther always loses (to a flank shot) and no Sherms are injured.

You need to find real evidence to support your claims; something you thought you saw on a TV show just isn't very good evidence.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

As few suggestions:

People should stop taking single events like "my Sherman toasted the King Tiger at 500 meters". CMBO models weak spot penetrations (with 1% chance of all hits), so single events are by definition covered by than, and noone has a problem with that.

Steve, can you give me a clue what the good 95mm HC penetration numbers come from? Less rotation is the only thing I can imagine. I cannot find any info on the rifling of this weapon, somehow it is less covered in the literature than the 88

I don't think that combat reports will be useful for the 95mm versus Tigers, since they probably never shot at one, penetration or not.

Iron chef, it is a matter of politeness to read a forum before posting to it. There are zillion of threads that would make it clear to you that all other people in this thread have read all the compat reports you read, and obviously much more.<hr></blockquote>

that was pretty polite of you thanks, you will be my inspiration in manners from now on redwolf. yes it is obvious that other have read more because we disagree. i thought that point of the forum was for a discusion in wich different points of views can conversate.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

well i'm not going ot hold your hand thru it, if your realy interested in ww2 wich you seem to be you'll come across it eventualy just a matter of time, i don't feel the need to prove facts when thats what books are for. i don't mind if you won't take my word for it, you'll read it for yourself eventualy,not a big deal, this is a cool forum. mabe you can find a fast reference on the history channel website i dont know, i would give a few book titles if i could rmeember the exact names of them, i havent read any books on this for a long time<hr></blockquote>

In fact, when I read your 90% I went to the library, went through my own archive of NARA papers, and called a friend in Florida for a quote from a book I could not find. Then I quoted the basic references to you, not being ultimately pendantic because I also found so many secondary source agreements on the relative effectiveness of tac air.

No need to hold my hand, just tell me what show. Or tell me who produced it. You may be correct, but because your numbers are extremely different from the USAAF, the RAF, the TD command of the AGF (USA Army), and a US Airforce study post war, it make me wonder about their validity. If you had said king tigers where killed by aircraft I would have said, yep -- sure thing. But to use what is at best a tertiary source which you do not remember clearly actually harms the credibility of your arguments here.

50%? I could deal with that since it is closer to the numbers the primary sources and informed high credibility secondary sources bat around. 90% -- not only unlikely but almost certianly wrong no matter what class of vehicle it is applied to. More importantly, another source shows that at least 30% of the KTs in service were lost due to running out of fuel. That makes for a hefty surplus if we assume both your number and this number are correct.

Of course, this argument could be turned around, since I heard on "history of the gun" om HBO that the M2HB was am effective armor penetrator that could even penetrate tank hulls in World War Two. Seems if I quote this maybe the KT is over modelled since my M2HBs have never killed one yet.

[Battlefront.com]

KR wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Yet BTS have stated that if you can come up with a logical reason why something should be changed & back it up with facts (e.g. no reported penetrations of the King Tiger from the front or side AT ALL either in the field or in test trials) then it could possibly be interpreted by some that they are shirking the issue.<hr></blockquote>

Interpret as you like. My not wanting to debate Jason comes from direct experience "debating" him in the past. I have found it to suck up an enormous amount of time and gets us nowhere. Sorry Jason, but I find debating with you to be rather fruitless. In my experience no matter what I say, Jason has already made up your mind that I am wrong. I have even seen Jason, weeks later, make comments like "who knows why they did this" when I know for a fact that I painfully explained it to him in great detail. So in short... I honestly don't see any point in trying to have a debate with Jason when the likely outcome is simply a large waste of my time and a sense of acute frustration.

As for the over/under modeling of specific HEAT rounds, I've passed on the questions to Charles as he is the only one who can answer it. But in case people weren't aware, we are extremely busy making CMBB so we are not available 24 hours a day to answer any and all questions posted to us.

So I can not say when an answer might be forthcoming. Not because we are trying to dodge something, but because the issue of the numbers being right or wrong pales in importance to time spent coding up things that don't yet exist at all. Especially beacause the two rounds in question are NOT relevant to CMBB, which is the game we are working on now. As we have said many times in the past, CMBO is a "finished" product. Certainly not "perfect", but "finished" none the less.

Sorry to come off rather rough about this issue, but honestly... would you all rather us spend our time doing the round and round with Jason, or would you rather us do things like make sure the KV1 is correctly modeled? Life is full of choices

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Iron Chef:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>i thought that point of the forum was for a discusion in wich different points of views can conversate. <hr></blockquote>

It is. However, there are better and worse ways to do this. Claiming that other people need to educate themselves while citing a nameless History Channel program to support an (obviously) incorrect statistic isn't a good way to make a favorable impression.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

i found many comicla books written by marine "<hr></blockquote>

YEAH, WE KNOW YOUR SOURCES ARE COMIC BOOKS, WHAT IS THE POINT????

Sorry Madmatt, but this guy is the ultimate in hypocracy - and has to be a fake. No one in their right mind can come on here and laugh at other people for the sources they consult in the same breath as citing "some program on the History Channel." See Steve's response above. He pretends to be an intellectual but the dog just don't hunt.

And yes, Steve, we have all fallen in the Jason trap, I commend you for your restraint and your approach to the problem (sincerely). Looking forward to CM2. Hey, anyone who picks King Tigers is a cheating gamey bastard anyway, right?

[Battlefront.com]

Tero:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>When you were designing CMBO how did you verify RL occurances to weed out anomalies ? X amount of tac level AAR's which you yourslef turned into statistics ?<hr></blockquote>

Of course not. That would be the incorrect way to make a simulation. The correct way is break the whole down to its componant pieces and simulate each in as great of detail as possible. For example, ballistics and armor. Then you put them together to form structures, like tanks and buildings.

This approach, in theory, would allow us to match a King Tiger against a M1A1 Abrams and come out with a reasonably accurate representation of how a match up between the two might have gone. Provided, of course, that we covered enough of the key factors well enough. And how do we know if we have done that since a King Tiger and M1A1 never saw each other in real life battle? By applying as much science as possible to the process and double checking each componant piece and then the whole.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> How did you verify the CMBO approach was historically accurate if there were no RL occurances to compare the CM results to ?<hr></blockquote>

If one builds a simulation based on higher level knowledge (i.e. x tanks of this type were killed vs. y of this type), then it would be impossible to simulate ANY situation that did not EXACTLY meet the conditions studied. That includes the exact angle each was facing at the time, speed, weather conditions, crew quality, distracting events, etc. In other words, using higher level knowledge is utterly useless when creating the simulation.

Where higher level knowledge comes into play is later on, after the simulation is constructed. If you see something in the game that real life documented wasn't possible, then there *MIGHT* be a need for change. Or it could be that the documentation was flawed or did not mention key conditions which resulted in the situation as noted. This is the #1 problem with penetration data tables being taken at face value for example.

Is there any other way to do it? I think not. At least not one that can be justified or hold up under stress.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Wreck:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Steve, all you need to do to "win" this one for the CM HEAT formula is to find a single instance of a bazooka killing a KT. Or, you could find a single instance of a 95mm gun killing a Panther or Tiger from the front.<hr></blockquote>

One can not prove a negative. If I can not find a single instance of either happening, it does not mean it was not possible. I have seen one picture of a King Tiger with what looks to be a neat little HEAT hole (clean, neat, round, and with a small blast mark) in the side of the turret which was labled as being from a Bazooka. I don't have time to look for it, but it is a rather common picture so I am sure many of you have seen it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Now KTs were pretty rare, so reports about bazookas and them might be hard to find. But I would think it very likely that the Brits would have figured out that their 95mm could kill the big cats handily, and they would have used the 95mm tanks accordingly, and left records of it. <hr></blockquote>

Bad assumption to make First of all, how many King Tigers did the British Army ever face? A couple dozen? Does anybody know of even one instance of something like a Cromwell VI getting a hit with a HEAT round on one? I don't.

And of course, you are equating a perfect meeting engagement for the Brits. Again, the whole tactical strategy of the Germans was to engage the enemy at long distances from favorable positions. Even if a Cromwell VI went up against a King Tiger, maybe it never had a chance to crack off a shot? Or it cracked off 8 and missed each time, then the KT retreated.

This is the problem with trying to justify/challenge things in the game by incomplete real life battle accounts. They have their place, for sure, but they can not be looked at independently. Just because something is noted doesn't mean it is 100% accurate for 100% of the possible situations 100% of the time. And the lack of some sort of real life example doesn't necessarily mean anything. Especially when you are talking about an ULTRA rare vehicle like the KT.

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

Why does anyone pay any attention to the Iron Chef anyway? Hey! What's for dinner!?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Iron Chef:

It is. However, there are better and worse ways to do this. Claiming that other people need to educate themselves while citing a nameless History Channel program to support an (obviously) incorrect statistic isn't a good way to make a favorable impression.

Steve<hr></blockquote>that stat is correct though, i beleive the show was simply called achtung tiger or tiger or something i didnt make that up and there are many books as well that state it, i didnt claim anyone needed ot educate themselves, i only encouraged more reading wich is'nt a bad thing i don't think, it's not like i called anoyne a moron or anything. i only suggested more then once sourse is all wich he probably will anyway

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

YEAH, WE KNOW YOUR SOURCES ARE COMIC BOOKS, WHAT IS THE POINT????

Sorry Madmatt, but this guy is the ultimate in hypocracy - and has to be a fake. No one in their right mind can come on here and laugh at other people for the sources they consult in the same breath as citing "some program on the History Channel." See Steve's response above. He pretends to be an intellectual but the dog just don't hunt.

And yes, Steve, we have all fallen in the Jason trap, I commend you for your restraint and your approach to the problem (sincerely). Looking forward to CM2. Hey, anyone who picks King Tigers is a cheating gamey bastard anyway, right?<hr></blockquote>

haha, yeah check spiderman number 327, -nuff said

[Iron Chef Sakai]

i've yet to evne use a king tiger yet, how are they in the game anyway? i had fun with a tigerI once but i prefer the panzerIVH most of the time, one of my favorite tanks, great all around, plus all the comic books say thier good, dorosh, when did i claim to be an intelectual? and if your such an intelectual why do you use the word in a snobbish manner? if you were so intelectual you would know the real meaning of the word right?

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

if you were so intelectual you would know the real meaning of the word right?<hr></blockquote>

Well, I would have spelled "hypocrisy" correctly, at any rate. Or spelled spelt right, come to think of it.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Of course not. That would be the incorrect way to make a simulation.

I meant RL AAR's. I mean, how did you reconsile real life reports that contradicted your findings.

The correct way is break the whole down to its componant pieces and simulate each in as great of detail as possible.

As I understand it you tested the interaction of each variable using extensive play testing. Did you form statistics from these playtesting results to get some sort correlations between each variable ? And if so how did you appreciate them in the order of relevance ?

For example, ballistics and armor. Then you put them together to form structures, like tanks and buildings.

All penetration values are equation based, not test data based. Which is fine. How were the values tested "clinically" in the CM engine ?

By applying as much science as possible to the process and double checking each componant piece and then the whole.

What about the interaction of different variables and how various combinations affect the outcome. Science or feelings of the playtesters ?

If you see something in the game that real life documented wasn't possible, then there *MIGHT* be a need for change. Or it could be that the documentation was flawed or did not mention key conditions which resulted in the situation as noted. This is the #1 problem with penetration data tables being taken at face value for example.

The bazooka penetrating the side armour of the KT is a case in point. The first shot hit accuracy of the German armour and guns is another. The former I have not formed an opinion yet. The latter I think just plain feels it is too low. Especially in ambush/surprise situations when they open fire undetected and have had time (supposedly) to track the target for some time.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Well, I would have spelled "hypocrisy" correctly, at any rate. Or spelled spelt right, come to think of it.<hr></blockquote>

hehe i wouldnt worry about it, your probably just a fast typer like me and don't bother to check your work, it's only a forum so i would'nt worry about it

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

In fact, when I read your 90% I went to the library, went through my own archive of NARA papers, and called a friend in Florida for a quote from a book I could not find. Then I quoted the basic references to you, not being ultimately pendantic because I also found so many secondary source agreements on the relative effectiveness of tac air.

No need to hold my hand, just tell me what show. Or tell me who produced it. You may be correct, but because your numbers are extremely different from the USAAF, the RAF, the TD command of the AGF (USA Army), and a US Airforce study post war, it make me wonder about their validity. If you had said king tigers where killed by aircraft I would have said, yep -- sure thing. But to use what is at best a tertiary source which you do not remember clearly actually harms the credibility of your arguments here.

50%? I could deal with that since it is closer to the numbers the primary sources and informed high credibility secondary sources bat around. 90% -- not only unlikely but almost certianly wrong no matter what class of vehicle it is applied to. More importantly, another source shows that at least 30% of the KTs in service were lost due to running out of fuel. That makes for a hefty surplus if we assume both your number and this number are correct.

Of course, this argument could be turned around, since I heard on "history of the gun" om HBO that the M2HB was am effective armor penetrator that could even penetrate tank hulls in World War Two. Seems if I quote this maybe the KT is over modelled since my M2HBs have never killed one yet.<hr></blockquote>

sorry i dont have the book list i havent read in awhile, as far as hbo, i wouldnt put much faith in realism form anyhting on that channel,yes band of brothers included, it is a move, if you enjoy it great but rmember it is a movie, and no that wasnt meant towarss you slap dragon just anoyne in general. i'll start reading again on this stuff eventualy that way i'll be able ot recmomend some cool books, i used to know a bunch