Are King Tigers Modelled Correctly?

[eeyore]

Can I broaden this out a bit? A question for BTS: Is CMBO a simulation or are allowances made for creating a balanced game? In other words, if there was such a thing as an invincable ubertank, would it modelled as such or are allowances made in the interest of a balanced game?

I ask because there's always going to be a tension between creating a simulation and creating an enjoyable game (perhaps exagerated with the need to create balanced encounters via Quick Battle option). I don't mean to imply that each is mutually exclusive; just that it might be hard to reconcile both aims satisfactorily.

If the KT was as impervious to bazooka and heat as some suggest (I wouldn't know and I certainly don't have any evidence one way or the other) then perhaps other factors can be modelled (cheaper allied aircraft, greater use of "bogging down" to simulate lack of fuel or breakdowns where crew abandon tank). I know, too late for CMBO but something to consider for future?

Yeknod

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: eeyore ]</p>

[Roksovkiy]

Can the CM team cite some of the obscure sources used to justify the King Tiger having 90% side armor quality. Or was it included for gameplay concerns.

Not one ounce of evidence has been quoted as to why this has been done. All ‘known’ evidence of failed 57mm and bazooka hits recorded in combat reports suggest the side hull was either over-armoured or of 100% armor quality.

I’d also like to know what perplexing sources were used to model the accuracy of the 88mm guns at below 1km ranges. Is it not plausible that the game is geared towards the US market.

[WWB]

What I think we are seeing is that there is one armor quality number for the whole AFV (in any case) rather than side plates. And it has been well demostrated that the larger, thicker plates (i.e. front glacis) on late war German tanks did have some flaws which justify those numbers.

That said, it might be cool if BTS could attach armor quality numbers to each facing instead of forcing a single value on a whole vehicle.

As for the long range accuracy, Steve has stated words to the effect that optics, etc. were left out because engagement ranges were generally under 1km , especially in CM. Also, most of those 1st shot kills at 1500m by an emplaced 88mm were pre-ranged shots on stationary (or nearly stationary) targets. Put a TRP out there and then see how accurate the 88 (or any other gun for that matter) is.

WWB

[Diceman]

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

Can I broaden this out a bit? A question for BTS: Is CMBO a simulation or are allowances made for creating a balanced game? In other words, if there was such a thing as an invincable ubertank, would it modelled as such or are allowances made in the interest of a balanced game? <hr></blockquote>

I'm not BTS, and cannot speak for them, but I think I can answer your question nonetheless. The Answer is: the tanks are modeled based on design data (which you can observe by selecting a unit and hitting enter). For instance the front Upper hull of a Tiger 2 is 150mm @ 50degrees. Thin spots such as mg ports and optic ports are also modeled. Unless I'm mistaken armor hardness is also modeled.

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

I ask because there's always going to be a tension between creating a simulation and creating an enjoyable game (perhaps exagerated with the need to create balanced encounters via Quick Battle option). I don't mean to imply that each is mutually exclusive; just that it might be hard to reconcile both aims satisfactorily.

If the KT was as impervious to bazooka and heat as some suggest (I wouldn't know and I certainly don't have any evidence one way or the other) then perhaps other factors can be modelled (cheaper allied aircraft, greater use of "bogging down" to simulate lack of fuel or breakdowns where crew abandon tank). I know, too late for CMBO but something to consider for future?

Yeknod

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: eeyore ]<hr></blockquote>

No weapon platform has been under-modeled for the sake of game play. Some would suggest that the 90% armor rating constitutes under modeling. I'm no export on this so I can't add to the debate. I can only tell you that ample test data has been brought to my attention through this forum to support downgrading the quality of late war uber cats. Not a single test report on late war uber cats has been sighted on this forum (that I'm aware of) that does not make note of metallurgical problems with late war German armor, while many that do make note of it have been sighted. I have seen pictures of German armor failure due to metallurgical problems, but I don't own the book and can't remember its name.

As you have suggested, game balance has been carefully calculated on a purchase point basis.

Cheers

Eric

[Specterx]

Steve,

Frankly, it appears as though BTS has taken a hypocritical stance on these issues. Asking for evidence of imperfections in the game, then discounting/ignoring that evidence because of personal conflicts or a "we know what we're doing" attitude isn't a good way to defend CMBO. There seems to be quite a bit of specific evidence demonstrating a problem with HEAT penetration and/or the KT's armor.

If you don't really care about such-and-such tank having 5mm too much armor, then say so. Tell jason to STFU so you can get back to CMBB (which I'd prefer ).

Now, you've stated before that we can't necessarily cite CMBO battle experience as evidence of problems with the German heavies because we "don't use them correctly". Setting aside the problems inherent with making such a sweeping, general statement, this is not always true. In the CMMC campaign, I think you can find that armored vehicles are almost always used "correctly". Furthermore, since we're using RL force compositions from RL units, conditions exist that are _very_ similar to those you would encounter on a real life WWII battlefield. I think you'll find a wealth of information in the various AAR's and experiences of the players that can help you corroborate or disprove these sorts of claims.

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Specterx ]</p>

[JPS]

Steve,

with all due respect, I have to agree with Specterx that you seem to process feedback from certain knowledgeable forum members in rather dismissive fashion.

Moreover, any changes in modeling either King Tiger armor or especially HEAT effects can directly contribute to CMBB.

[JasonC]

Oh, just wait people. Steve already said he referred the issue to Charles, who is the only one who knows anything about the actual HEAT modeling. Everything else he has said is just flak and filler, since he admits he personally hasn't a clue on the technical question. Myself, I have never been disappointed in anything Charles has said on a CM technical issue. I wish I could say the same about Steve's debating style, but that sort of thing is really quite irrelevant in the long run. Facts will out. Wait for Charles. If Rexford has anything to contribute on the subject, I'd be interested in that, too.

[Battlefront.com]

Tero

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I meant RL AAR's. I mean, how did you reconsile real life reports that contradicted your findings.<hr></blockquote>

A small dose of reality here... very little information out there agrees on a particular issue 100% of the time in 100% of the possible situations. So like any good researcher/scientist, all things must be looked at in as broad a context as possible. If two pieces of "real world" data (forget about CM for now!!) don't agree with each other we have to figure out why. This is unfortunately what we spend much of our time doing because so little can be counted on as "correct" or "complete". It is all a balancing act of detective work, if you will. It is subject to error and interpretation, which is why there is often disagreements between people who are looking at the same exact "facts".

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

Of course not. If we approached it that way we would still be working on just the gunnery model after 5 years of work There are millions and millions of possible different permutations that would have to be recored, multiple times, for this method to work. Since this is practically impossible, it was not done. However, when we (BTS, testers, or customers) found a situation which did not appear to be correct, then tabulation and experimentation was done. Unfortunately, we have found many such tests conducted by players to be inherently flawed and therefore not indicitive of anything in and of themselves. Also unfortunately, we have found that some people can't understand or accept that tests can be flawed and therefore irrelevant. Very frustrating when this happens from our point of view.

eeyore wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Can I broaden this out a bit? A question for BTS: Is CMBO a simulation or are allowances made for creating a balanced game? In other words, if there was such a thing as an invincable ubertank, would it modelled as such or are allowances made in the interest of a balanced game?<hr></blockquote>

Absolutely ZERO modifications or changes were made to ANYTHING in order to "balance" the game. If something has x penetration at y range, we did not fudge the equations up or down to make the results different than science tells us they should. That doesn't mean our stuff is 100% correct, but it is 100% impartial. However, we have avoided simulating somethings which we felt would compromise the game in terms of historical accuracy. Many of these things affect both sides equally, such as the inability to direct fire through smoke blocked LOS. So there again, "balancing" one side vs. the other, for sake of gameplay, is something we have never done and never will do.

Roksovkiy

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Can the CM team cite some of the obscure sources used to justify the King Tiger having 90% side armor quality. Or was it included for gameplay concerns.<hr></blockquote>

We have in the past. Remember, the game is over a year old. All of these issues have been brought up many times in the past. I can't spend my time constantly rejustifying things over and over again each and every time someone asks a question. Try the Search fucntion on this BBS. The 275,000 messages it contains do talk about things other than the current weather conditions

Spectrex

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Frankly, it appears as though BTS has taken a hypocritical stance on these issues. Asking for evidence of imperfections in the game, then discounting/ignoring that evidence because of personal conflicts or a "we know what we're doing" attitude isn't a good way to defend CMBO. There seems to be quite a bit of specific evidence demonstrating a problem with HEAT penetration and/or the KT's armor.<hr></blockquote>

There is also quite a bit of ignoring the things I already said, in this thread and in others. So I either get sucked into a frustrating multi hour discussion repeating myself until I am red in the face, or I simply pass on yet another distraction from things which are more important to EVERYBODY. I think after 2.5 years of discussions here that we have enough credibility that it is not necessary to have a week long debate about every little thing without people thinking that we are dodging the issue. At least that is the way it should be.

JasonC

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I wish I could say the same about Steve's debating style, but that sort of thing is really quite irrelevant in the long run. Facts will out.<hr></blockquote>

Well, all I have to say in my defense is that I have tried to debate you in the past, about things which I have as much knowledge about as Charles, and have found it a totally futile and enormously time consuming exercise. Judging by the comments I've seen by others (in this thread, in others, and through email) I know I am not the only one to feel this way. But I don't expect you to understand any of this, nor do I particularly care either way. Unfortunate, since you are obviously not a dope.

Steve

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Ok, talked this over with Charles. First of all, we both agreed that this is NOT an issue we want to spend any time on. There is no "magic" answer and we could spend tons of time debating something which most likely all sides will never agree upon. Never. Keeping that in mind, it does not make any sense for us to carry on a lengthy debate about specific issues in CMBO because that will come at the expense of CMBB.

Also remember that there are a couple thousand things in CM that we had to make some sort of educated decision upon. Some were easier than others, some more controversial than others. But someone had to make the call at some point. Forever debating these issues would mean nothing would ever get done. Initially only a handful of people made the decisions about what to include and how to include it. This was also done under great time and resource pressures. Since then, literally thousands of grogs and grog wannabees have had over 1.5 to 2 years to pick apart each and every one of the thousands of decisions that were made in less time by fewer people who were under a lot of pressure.

The fact that there are so few issues, on the whole, which are still being debated is actually rather surprising. The only conclusion that can be derived from this is that we do in fact know what we are doing. After all, CM did not from the sky already made. It started out on a cocktail napkin in a bar that Charles and I used to frequent. So we ask even the most jaded person out there (like Jason) to at least acknowledge these facts ESPECIALLY since nobody else on this BBS (or in the world we know of) has made such a body of work for the public to scrutinize like everybody does to CM.

Now, onto what Charles had to say...

HEAT values in reports are "all over the place". The differences have to do with inconsistent testing method and recording methods, manufacturing and/or design flaws, and the various "little factors" which come into play during such tests. They can not all be correct! Charles chose what he felt were the best sets of data possible to base CM's values on. The fact that not everybody agrees with all of these choices does not come as any surprise to us. Actually, it is expected

The value of the British 95mm round is based on the mathematical extrapolation of the same report Jason cited, or at least one which was nearly identical. That math produced a value of 127mm for 0 degree slope armor hit. Charles rounded this down to 125mm as a sort of margin of error (he did this for all HEAT rounds to some degree or another).

The value of the German 105mm round was taken from Jentz reports. There are in fact THREE different 105mm HEAT rounds, varying in penetration up to 25%. Charles took the most common round (which was also the best) and modeled that one in the game.

The US 105mm round's penetration is definitely below some published reports. Rexford (whom we worked with before CM was even released!) documented manufacturing/design flaws wich made this round underperform in the real world. So those are the figures used since they appear to be more correct.

The US Bazooka round's penetration figures are justifiable as is. If anything they might be a little lower than in real life. If the penetration values were lowered any more they would routinely fail to penetrate the Tiger1 from the side, which is well documented as having been possible. So if this round is "overmodeled" then there is a problem with the reports from the front. In this case we are inclined to believe the Bazooka round's modeling is more correct than not.

Conclusion... the British 95mm round appears to be of a slightly better design, at least in terms of manufacturing consistency, and that is why it is a little bit better than the German 105mm round (125mm vs 115mm at 0 deg, 108mm vs. 100mm at 30 deg). Not "grossly" as Jason has claimed. The US 105mm round falls short of either of these two due to manufacturing/design flaws. About 19% less potent than the 95mm and 12% less than the best of the three German rounds, a little better than the middle grade, and much better than the lower grade.

The case for the Bazooka being "overmodeled" based on direct comparisons with other HEAT rounds is flawed from the start. It is not possible to do this unless one also looks at the design and manufacturing qualities of each, and then figures out some mathematical way to compensate for the differences. Afterall, look at the penetration values for other launchers. The PIAT, for example, has 12% less weighty round, but only 7% less penetration of the Bazooka. Even more different is the Panzerfaust 60 compared to the similarly weighted German 105mm round, yet it has just about double the penetration power (and 3 times the worst 105mm round). So again, a linear comparison of a few empirical numbers can not derive the "truth". It just doesn't work that way.

We might be wrong about the values used in CMBO. We might also be correct. There are certainly cases to be made on either side of the issue. This is something that we have no problem acknowledging. But unless we went back in time and actually saw these various weapons attempt to take on each other in real world combat conditions, it is most likely that neither side can conclusively prove the other wrong.

So ask yourself... is it worth our time debating this particular issue? Honestly, we don't think so. Not that this isn't an interesting topic, or that we are 110% sure we are totally correct, but because we are satisfied that our data is not disproven incorrect. More importantly, we have tons of other things that need our attention a lot more than this issue warrants. Sorry folks, but the reality of time is something we can not debate.

Steve

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[JPS]

Steve,

thank you for your in-depth reply. Hopefully any new information that might help you in modeling HEAT penetration will be incorporated into CMBB. Framed that way even this thread would be one step towards sustaining superior simulation quality, and not only another nuisance

[eeyore]

Thanks Steve

Interesting debate. Yes, I'd support you and BTS in your priorities and I wouldn't want BTS to be distracted. But as you're beavering away the debate is still legitimate and valuable at least to inform innocents like myself about the complexity and depth of the simulation... a sort of education...

I believe its a good reflection on BTS that informed contributors are given the opportunity to thrash these issues around even if they are repeated.

Yeknod

[JasonC]

Very good. So now we have some facts, and they are substantially as I said they were before. The HEAT results are based on empirical test reports, acknowledged to be all over the place and thus difficult to model correctly, just like I said.

I think you should indeed still worry about this, and spend a modest amount of time on it, Charles in particular. Because the issue is not just one for the past and CMBO. It will also arise in the future and CMBB, as I will explain further below.

In the case of the US 105, the test reports implied things that combat experience did not bear out, and the penetration numbers were quite properly revised downward to reflect the real world combat performance. Excellent, bravo even, to Charles and to Rexford for catching that, and preventing US Sherman 105s from being magically transformed into uber-tank destroyers based on inflated test performance reports.

But was the same procedure applied to the German 105 and the British 95? No. Those are just test report figures. In the case of the German 105, the highest of three types. In the case of the British 95, from a test that also reported high performance for the US 105, that we know (per the previous paragraph) did not live up to those results in the field.

I applaud the procedure used for the US 105, and recommend extending it to the other two cases. To wit, cross check the test numbers for HEAT, since it is well known they are all over the map, with implied battlefield performance. And see if the implied abilities of the weapon are in evidence, from the combat reports.

The obvious cross check in the case of the US 105 was, that if the test results were to be believed, they should have routinely KOed Tiger Is from the front, and Panthers with front turret hits. But in practice they did neither. Well, the same is true for the British 95mm. If the test results are believed, then the British 95mm howitzer tanks should have routinely KOed Tiger Is from the front, and Panthers with front turret hits. The Panther is a reasonably common vehicle. Such engagements should have occurred. The 95mm howitzer tanks should have earned a reputation as uber-tank destroyers. But they did not. Instead, the British are always talking about how the 17-lber was the only gun they had good enough to do that job. The 95mm are routinely considered just anti-infantry weapons, with limited AT ability. Exactly the same as with Sherman 105s.

But you may think all of that is still just the past and CMBO. Well, the Germans have test results too, and combat performances too. The Germans in the field report that the T-34 can be defeated by 105mm HEAT - but that the KV-1 cannot. KV-1s are armored like Tigers. If you keep the 105mm HEAT numbers you have now, for the Germans, you will see KV-1s dropping to German 105mm HEAT, for exactly the same reasons Panthers now drop to British 95mm HEAT. The StuH-42 will become an uber-tank destroyer. Whereas a cross check from battlefield experience would suggest, that German 105mm HEAT should KO 45@60, but not flat 110mm plate. Which, lo and behold, is true with the US 105mm HEAT (or even German 105mm RCL HEAT), but not with the German 105mm HEAT numbers you have now (let alone the British 95mm HEAT numbers).

In other words, the combat reports on the three weapons are much closer than your current figures for them are. The Americans reported 105mm HEAT usually failed to kill Tiger Is from the front. But the Brits did not report otherwise of their 95mm, against Tiger I fronts or Panther turret fronts. And the Germans reported the same failings against the (only marginally better) KV-1, with their own 105mm HEAT. Only the US real world reports are consistent with the varied numbers you give to the three weapons. Only (highly variable) test reports, known to overestimate US 105mm HEAT, stand on the other side.

Apply the same skepticism towards the other tests as toward the tests of US 105mm HEAT, cross checking by real world combat performance, and you will find cause to revise the performance numbers of the other two rounds as well. And this is not just a matter for CMBO and the past. KV-1s and how to tackle them will be an important subject in CMBB.

All of that is on the large HEAT issue. The KT side armor issue will also exist in CMBB. Will Russian 76mm HEAT routinely KO King Tigers from the side? 76mm guns that can fire HEAT are a farthing a bushel in Russia. They have about the same penetration you give the (only 60mm, come to that) bazooka. 100% side armor quality KTs would not be vunerable to 76mm HEAT from the side. 90% armor quality ones will be. Not in CMBO, in CMBB. The issue of one quality rating for front (where the lower figures seem appropriate to me) and side is not going to vanish, including its application to KTs.

Then there is an additional reason you should spend some time on this. Because you should live up to your own well meaning hype about receptivity to corrections offered with evidence by the CM player community. Saying "we are just too busy" as a way of shrugging off such suggestions, does you and us a disservice. It frankly makes your earlier statements, "just present it clearly and specificially and with evidence", sound like boilerplate and spin. It is belied by a past willingness to include improvements based on feedback, which has been excellent in the past.

I want you to get the German 105mm HEAT vs. KV-1 front match-up right, every bit as much as the zook vs. KT side or 95mm HEAT vs. Tiger I front. They sort of matter. You got the US 105mm HEAT vs. Tiger I front correct, and that is great. But the others aren't any less important. Getting right the range of threats to a given tank (and especially the heavies, since in many lighter cases penetration is routine) - by aspect, shooter, range - is what all of the armor grogness is eventually all about.

You spoke before about using heavy tanks correctly. Well, a Tiger I driver in Normandy on the British sector, who saw that there were no 17-lbers remaining opposite (perhaps because they had already been KOed, whatever) would historically have been using his tank correctly if he made sure he presented only his front (e.g. by use of range or keyhole sighting), but otherwise shrunk from no gun duel. With the 95mm overmodeled, this is not the case. A Panzer commander in the Ardennes, worried about infantry bazooka or 57mm ATG ambushes along a wooded road, was using heavy tanks correctly if he put a King Tiger on "point". But with undermodeled KT side armor, that is not the case.

And a KV-1 driver in Russia is going to worry about the same sorts of things. In particular, he is going to worry about flank shots and 88mm Flak, perhaps 150mm HEAT. If he has to shrink form every 105mm howitzer or StuH, even when he can present only front aspect, then he is going to have to use his tank differently from the way the real tankers could, and did. Which isn't the past, it is the near future.

[Redwolf]

Riding the same issue, what is the in-flight rotation of the 105mm howitzer and the British 95mm? Was the test data taken for a non-rotation shot, while the actual field weapon was rifled? When did people discover the rotation degration of HC rounds, anyway?

Is it possible that Charles mistook a 0-degrees test hit as a 30-degrees test?

I agree with Jason that this is an important issue for some of us. Imagine we want to test the theories from the "What a German column faced in the Ardennes?" thread. Would it have been better to replace the King Tigers with faster tanks or with artillery or with ammunition carriers? To get any answer on that question, we have to play the ambushes on the King Tigers, which we can't do right now if the Bazooka is overmodeled enough to turn this balance.

Jason, do you have more than Rexfords quotes on one British test report that the King Tiger's side armour was equivalent to US steel? A proposal that the very low armour quality settings were better applied only to the front plates has something for it and goes nicely with side-shot bazooka reports on King Tigers and cracked-open Panther fronts. Steve, I reviewed all threads with "armour|steel quality" and "side armour" in them, and I never saw an official BTS response.

I am somewhat concerned about the whole issue, because Combat Mission is *the* one game that allows us to realistically playtest tanks versus other arms. Correct models for hollow charge ammunition is critical.

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

well it it states in the direction book, there are always going to be people who ar eupset is the panthers armor is .0032mm off or whateve it says, i remember readng that months ago. i just want to state that nothing in this game has irked me. nothing. i just thought i would add my 2 cents since the topic was already here. this is the best game of its genre , ever. Jason with all the time you spend looking up facts that i could just a seasily pick up another book that says somehtnig else, and repeat, it could go on for months, i dont want o be a historian for free, hehe. my advise is if assuming you own the game, get off the forum and load up the game. if your mored of the ai, you can always play me, i'll set up an ip game, i enjoy playing humans more. i only played the computer once to get a feel for the game

[Redwolf]

I am pretty sure that Iron Chef Saki is someone well-known who just enjoys this way to point out he thinks we are beating a dead horse.

I take bets on who this really is. Gunny Bunny? Nah, that would be too much to ask him (her?) for.

[Madmatt, please don't spoil us with IP or browser face info.]

[Battlefront.com]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I think you should indeed still worry about this, and spend a modest amount of time on it, Charles in particular. Because the issue is not just one for the past and CMBO. It will also arise in the future and CMBB, as I will explain further below.<hr></blockquote>

Sure, and individual rounds will be looked at individually. No different now than before.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But was the same procedure applied to the German 105 and the British 95? No.<hr></blockquote>

Correct, because we have no evidence to show that these rounds under performed like we did for the US 105 round. If we had such evidence, or there was a strong reason to believe that pretty much all HEAT rounds under performed, then we would do thigns differently.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Those are just test report figures. In the case of the German 105, the highest of three types.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, the most common for 1944/45. It also happened to be the best of the three. That is just coincidence.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In the case of the British 95, from a test that also reported high performance for the US 105, that we know (per the previous paragraph) did not live up to those results in the field.

I applaud the procedure used for the US 105, and recommend extending it to the other two cases. <hr></blockquote>

Why? Because you think we should? No. We "applied" the different thinking to the US round because there was direct evidence to suggest that it under performed. We have no such direct evidence about either the British 95mm or the German 105. If you can point us to some, great. But we aren't interested in blind speculation here.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>To wit, cross check the test numbers for HEAT, since it is well known they are all over the map, with implied battlefield performance. And see if the implied abilities of the weapon are in evidence, from the combat reports.<hr></blockquote>

If someone can point us to battlefield accounts of these rounds failing to take out a specific tank from a specific angle on a specific armor part... please, we want to see it. This type of evidence proves a positive, so to speak. It is valuable for us to look at.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The obvious cross check in the case of the US 105 was, that if the test results were to be believed, they should have routinely KOed Tiger Is from the front, and Panthers with front turret hits. But in practice they did neither. Well, the same is true for the British 95mm. If the test results are believed, then the British 95mm howitzer tanks should have routinely KOed Tiger Is from the front, and Panthers with front turret hits. The Panther is a reasonably common vehicle. Such engagements should have occurred.<hr></blockquote>

This is speculation on your part, pure and simple. If you can point us to evidence of 95mm guns being fired at Panthers and KTs, yet not knocking them out when in CM they can be, that would be interesting for us to see. But if there is no such evidence, we can not make this assumption.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The 95mm howitzer tanks should have earned a reputation as uber-tank destroyers.<hr></blockquote>

This assumes that the British sanctioned their use against armor, and not infantry as they were designed for. As far as I know putting a Cromwell MkVI or MkVII was against British practice. There was good reason for this. 1, they were explicitely designed to support infantry. 2, the low velocity of the HEAT round made it highly unlikely that it would score a hit on any tank (even a PzIV), especially on the move, except at close range. Again, the German tactical doctrine stressed not engaging in close tank to tank combat.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But they did not. Instead, the British are always talking about how the 17-lber was the only gun they had good enough to do that job. The 95mm are routinely considered just anti-infantry weapons, with limited AT ability. Exactly the same as with Sherman 105s.<hr></blockquote>

Because other practical considerations probably outweighed the simple "we have a big gun, let's center all tactical planning around it" theory you have developed.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The Germans in the field report that the T-34 can be defeated by 105mm HEAT - but that the KV-1 cannot. KV-1s are armored like Tigers. If you keep the 105mm HEAT numbers you have now, for the Germans, you will see KV-1s dropping to German 105mm HEAT<hr></blockquote>

Which 105mm round were the Germans using? A, B, or C type? Clearly this makes a difference as the later war round (simulated in CMBO) is about 40% more effective than the earliest one. Again, you have developed a theory which so far has no legs under it. I'm not saying flat out that you are wrong, but so far you haven't made a case.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The StuH-42 will become an uber-tank destroyer.<hr></blockquote>

Poppycock The various 75mm high velocity AT weapons which were common place during, and before, the StuH42's introduction were far more deadly. So if you think the StuH42 is an "über" tank destoyer, than the MarderII is what... an über-über tank destroyer?

By the time the StuH42 was available in significant numbers, the KV-1 could be knocked out by many different German weapons. In fact, before StuH42 production had even reached the battlefield the KV-1 (and the KV-1s) was already pulled out of frontline tank-tank service and was instead issued to specialized battalions designated for infantry support only. By the time the StuH production had got up to full tilt, there probably wasn't a KV on the entire battlefield. And if there was, practicaly any German AT asset could have dispatched it without too much difficulty as they could for the last two years.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In other words, the combat reports on the three weapons are much closer than your current figures for them are. <hr></blockquote>

Assuming, and this is the big point here... that the British attempted to use the 95mm gun on KTs and Panthers enough to have proven they were ineffective. I have no such data to support this notion, only your speculation. As for the German 105, above and below shows you simply have your facts wrong.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The Americans reported 105mm HEAT usually failed to kill Tiger Is from the front. But the Brits did not report otherwise of their 95mm, against Tiger I fronts or Panther turret fronts. <hr></blockquote>

Did the Brits report ANYTHING about 95mm HEAT rounds against Tiger 1s or Panther frontal armor? Either way? Personally, I would assume there to be such reports if they did in fact see such combat. This is something I would be interested to see if it exists.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Apply the same skepticism towards the other tests as toward the tests of US 105mm HEAT, cross checking by real world combat performance, and you will find cause to revise the performance numbers of the other two rounds as well.<hr></blockquote>

Based on what? A theory, without any support, that the British 95mm round obviously wasn't that good because they never used it? That the later model German 105mm HEAT round was used 2 years earlier than it was? That the StuH42 was on the battlefield before it was and the KV-1 still a threat long after it wasn't? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but this is the "evidence" you have produced so far. It is not only unconvincing, but factually incorrect in the case of the German 105 round.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Will Russian 76mm HEAT routinely KO King Tigers from the side? 76mm guns that can fire HEAT are a farthing a bushel in Russia. They have about the same penetration you give the (only 60mm, come to that) bazooka. 100% side armor quality KTs would not be vunerable to 76mm HEAT from the side. 90% armor quality ones will be. Not in CMBO, in CMBB. The issue of one quality rating for front (where the lower figures seem appropriate to me) and side is not going to vanish, including its application to KTs.<hr></blockquote>

You'll just have to wait and see what happens with this. But I can tell you that we are not going to arbitrarily lower HEAT values just because we feel like it. We need to see a stronger case before we do anything like this. The case might be there, mind you, but I don't see it here.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Then there is an additional reason you should spend some time on this. Because you should live up to your own well meaning hype about receptivity to corrections offered with evidence by the CM player community. Saying "we are just too busy" as a way of shrugging off such suggestions, does you and us a disservice. It frankly makes your earlier statements, "just present it clearly and specificially and with evidence", sound like boilerplate and spin. It is belied by a past willingness to include improvements based on feedback, which has been excellent in the past.<hr></blockquote>

You still don't get it. I am too busy to debate YOU in particular. Cripes, I have wasted about 2 hours so far today and I said I wouldn't spend more than 5 minutes. Your original thesis is fundamentally flawed and specific to CMBO which we have stated over and over again is "finished".

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>A Panzer commander in the Ardennes, worried about infantry bazooka or 57mm ATG ambushes along a wooded road, was using heavy tanks correctly if he put a King Tiger on "point". But with undermodeled KT side armor, that is not the case.<hr></blockquote>

Not true. They also used infantry to screen any and all tank advances. And since so very few KTs even made it into battle vs. the British (see the thread you started about KT numbers), what you are talking about bears no relation to reality. In CMBO both King Tigers and Cromwells armed with 95mm guns are used too frequently in ways that aren't realistic. Therefore, trying to use this as your "evidence" for over modeling of the 95mm gun is rather pointless. It doesn't cary any weight.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>And a KV-1 driver in Russia is going to worry about the same sorts of things. In particular, he is going to worry about flank shots and 88mm Flak, perhaps 150mm HEAT. If he has to shrink form every 105mm howitzer or StuH, even when he can present only front aspect, then he is going to have to use his tank differently from the way the real tankers could, and did. Which isn't the past, it is the near future.<hr></blockquote>

Again, by the time the 105mm gun was mounted in an armored chasis, the KVs already had a whole year of fearing practically every frontline German AT weapon. And even if it did meet up with a towed German 105mm gun, and that gun managed to get off the first shot and hit... the lower quality HEAT round probably wouldn't have killed the KV from the front.

So, if your BIG fear for CMBB is that we aren't going to model KVs correctly vs. 105mm HEAT rounds... don't worry about it. I'm sure we will get everything correct. But note that even if we took your side of things, and put in whatever numbers you suggest are "correct" (however you should decide to do this), the KV1s were long since dead meat on the battlefield by the time this round could have posed a threat.

And let us not forget your FAVORITE subject... Rarity

In the year of 1943 the Germans had produced 270 StuH42s in total. 3 times as many Tiger 1s had been produced, 15 times as many long PazerIVs, 6.5 times as many Panthers, 12 times as many StuGs, 4 times as many Marder IIs, 2 times as many Marder IIIs, and 2 times as many Nashorns. Combine that with the realtive rarity of the KV1s by this point and I think even you can see there is nothing to worry about. At least I hope you can

Steve

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Riding the same issue, what is the in-flight rotation of the 105mm howitzer and the British 95mm? Was the test data taken for a non-rotation shot, while the actual field weapon was rifled? When did people discover the rotation degration of HC rounds, anyway?<hr></blockquote>

No clue. But seeing as the muzzle velocity for all three HEAT weapons are the same for the guns we have been discussing thus far, I would suspect that they had similar spin.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Is it possible that Charles mistook a 0-degrees test hit as a 30-degrees test?<hr></blockquote>

No chance of that at all. Even Jason's figure agrees with what is in CM. He just thinks the figure should be lowered because he thinks it should be lowered.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I agree with Jason that this is an important issue for some of us. <hr></blockquote>

It is to us as well, which is why we will resist changing numbers just because someone thinks they are "grossly" over stated, yet doesn't present much of a case to support it.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Would it have been better to replace the King Tigers with faster tanks or with artillery or with ammunition carriers? To get any answer on that question, we have to play the ambushes on the King Tigers, which we can't do right now if the Bazooka is overmodeled enough to turn this balance.<hr></blockquote>

This is, of course, assuming it is overmodled. We do not think it is, and therefore things will work just fine as is.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Steve, I reviewed all threads with "armour|steel quality" and "side armour" in them, and I never saw an official BTS response.<hr></blockquote>

Hmmm... search engine must be off or you must not have asked its Holy Magisty the correct question Unfortunately, it is a bit flakey even with the latest updates.

The Germans suffered production problems with their later war armor. Apparently (going from memory here), the thicker the armor was the more flawed. This is where there is room for debate about things like the Panther's armor in particular. One can argue that the lower rating should only apply to the front glacis and not any other part. Unfortunately, CM does not allow for individual parts to be seperately lowered. All or nothing. So Charles lowered the Panther (and probably KT) LESS than he should of to sorta balance things out. But since the Panther's side armor is so thin anyway, it makes little difference there. Almost same for King Tiger. The side turret armor is certainly thicker than the Panther's, but the lower hull isn't all that thick. In a situation where the enemy has a good flank on a KT it is most likely too close and in trouble for any number of reasons.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I am somewhat concerned about the whole issue, because Combat Mission is *the* one game that allows us to realistically playtest tanks versus other arms. Correct models for hollow charge ammunition is critical.<hr></blockquote>

I agree, but not as critical as the thinking that goes into whatever "tests" are devised. Flawed logic and/or conditions there will produce all sorts of really flakey results. We have *sigh* been combating poor "tests" since the Beta Demo.

Steve

P.S. I don't think Iron Chef Sakai is our dear friend Gunny. Too well reasoned and polite

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Redwolf]

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

No clue. But seeing as the muzzle velocity for all three HEAT weapons are the same for the guns we have been discussing thus far, I would suspect that they had similar spin.

<hr></blockquote>

I assume that the 105mm howitzer has (much) more spin. It is an artillery piece meant for indirect long-range fire.

The British 95mm is a direct-fire weapon not intended for anti-tank work, it has less demand for accuracy. Even leaving aside that they may have made it with less spin to raise the effect of its HC, you still get better efficiency (smaller, cheaper shell for the same range) for HE shots with less rifling (whatever the correct verb is).

I agree that the armour quality of the Panther's side is of less importance. But for the King Tiger, it means that the Bazooka has a very narrow range of angle where it does *not* penetrate, instead of a very narrow range of angles where it is effective (all KT side armour has the same thickness, but different angles). Big difference for Ardennes combat, this is not a case of players abusing heavy tanks in unhistorical ways. In fact, the Peiper-vs-infantry engagements are amoung the best infantry-AT-teams versus tanks test cases I can think of.

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In fact, the Peiper-vs-infantry engagements are amoung the best infantry-AT-teams versus tanks test cases I can think of.<hr></blockquote>

Are there real life AARs of King Tigers being hit on the turret side and NOT being penetrated? Like I said earlier, I have seen at least one photo of a King Tiger with what looks to be a HEAT penetration smack dab center side turret. If this is correct, then it is possible for a Bazooka to KO a King Tiger from the side (that is what the documentation claims, in any case).

So we are back to square one on the Bazooka issue once again. We feel VERY strongly that the Bazooka is *not* overmodeled. Therefore, the only possibilities are that the KT side armor is undermodeled enough to make a critical difference for the Bazooka, or it could be that the Bazooka really could penetrate the side.

Steve

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Ales Dvorak]

Wellcome to Ljubljana.

[Battlefront.com]

Ales,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Wellcome to Ljubljana. <hr></blockquote>

Well, if I am taking this comment correctly... Ljubljana has sure changed since I visited there When I eventually have the time to get my butt out of North America, I'll have to check up on the city where the rivers meet!

Steve

[Redwolf]

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

So we are back to square one on the Bazooka issue once again. We feel VERY strongly that the Bazooka is *not* overmodeled. Therefore, the only possibilities are that the KT side armor is undermodeled enough to make a critical difference for the Bazooka, or it could be that the Bazooka really could penetrate the side.

<hr></blockquote>

I don't want to mess with the Bazooka issue, but the armour quality bothers me. The only armour quality test result (positive or negative) of KT side armour I have ever seen is the one that rexford passes around, and it says full quality, if not better than US steel. The low setting widens the range of angles the Bazooka is effective at. As it is, only a close-to 45 degress setting of the AT team makes the KT safe.

I understand that the CMBO model is just not sufficient to seperate them

I also wonder why the US replaced their Bazookas with Panzerschreck clones when facing T-34/85 in the Korean war. The T-34/85 front is quite similar to the KT side (90mm turret, 47mm at 60 degrees or so).

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As it is, only a close-to 45 degress setting of the AT team makes the KT safe.<hr></blockquote>

At what range? Remember, the further out the KT is the poorer the chance that the Bazooka will get a side shot based on KT's position. Meaning, the less it matters what the relative position of the Bazooka is the further away the KT is. According to doctrine of the day, if the KT was close enough to be it by a Bazooka it was not deployed correctly. Infantry was supposed to be out at least that distance in order to protect from just such a problem. In other words, no matter what the angle, penetration value, or KT armor quality is... the KT is NOT supposed to be that close. Period.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I also wonder why the US replaced their Bazookas with Panzerschreck clones when facing T-34/85 in the Korean war. The T-34/85 front is quite similar to the KT side (90mm turret, 47mm at 60 degrees or so).<hr></blockquote>

Probably because we knew of all the other nasty stuff the Soviets had deployed for the last 2 years of the war, most of which would shrug off a WWII Bazooka without a second thought. As it turned out most of the armor US forces faced in Korea, IIRC, were T-34s and not IS-2s, ISU 152, etc. Plus, when the US saw the IS-3 they assumed it would become a common foe in the near future. As it turned out, that was not the case. But it was prudent to assume it at the time

In general, the Bazooka was a marginal AT weapon by late 1944/45 standards. It could have stood to be improved even during that time period. So it is no wonder improvements were made after.

Steve

[Slapdragon]

The replacement of the older zook with the 3.5 inch was not done for the Korean war, but was army wide. The fronal forces did indeed request it, because the small zook round could not 100% effective in dealing with the T-34/85, failing to kill that tank in over half the engagements that it was used in (Korea: The Early Days, US Army fact file and official history) while the 3.5 inch was 80% or above effective.

During that stage of the war there was two choices for killing a T-34 -- the zook or a lucky side hit by a M-24, neither of which was impossible (an awful lot of T-34/85 were killed) but cost a lot of US and Korean servicemen their lives when better tanks and zooks were available.

[Ales Dvorak]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

[QB]Ales,

Well, if I am taking this comment correctly... Ljubljana has sure changed since I visited there

Steve

Steve, please be my guest.Let me know...You'll love it.Yes she?( my town ( is funny) yes it is ))

Give me a hint