Are King Tigers Modelled Correctly?

[Slapdragon]

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

when did i say the 75 was not an adequate gun? it was a great gun, though it came in many flavors. the high velocity 75mm that were on the panthers and panzerIV's were great. darei say even better then the allied 75's. and as far as the north african campaing is concerned there are no legendary brish genrals in that campaign, <hr></blockquote>

75 is not a gun, but a bore diameter. There is no relation between the German 75 of any variety, or the US M2 and M3 75mm. The British 75QF was designed to fire US ammo so it has a relationship to the US weapon.

The issue in question was the effect of the M2/M3 75mm and the M3/M4 tank on the desert war, which was considerable.

[JasonC]

Very useful, JonS. So the invunerable vehicle was a Jagdpanzer IV. 4 hits after immobilization by an earlier track hit, without KO. Obviously they got close enough to light it, so they weren't limited to front aspect shots. Sounds like skirts, doesn't it? I will run some CM tests and see if I can duplicate the result.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

no it's a gun, the soldiers called them guns right? i havent heard any veterens when talking about things like this not refer to it as a gun, mabe you should bring this to their attention too, i'm sure it would be greatly appreciated. i guess i'm just not as interested in wars as you are, there all pretty much the same anyway, i used to read alot about all of them but it got kind of old, do you actualy play this game at all? it's pretty fun you should try it sometime, hehe. oh and the way i see it is if you were a soldier , in a war, for whatever country, everyhting is effective, if it cuts shoots rolls over, crushes or breaks something, it is effective, i thought this was a pretty basic concept of war. if there wa ssome miricle weapon for the germans or allies, the casulaties would be one sided. it's notlike the germans did not lose any lives at the hands of the polish, or the italians were so inadequetely trained and equiped that thier bullets could not pass thru human flesh and kill people, their bombs exploded thier guns did damage, everyones did. sure tiger tanks were good at killing things. so were k-98 rifles. yeah the b-17's were great at killing people, well so were thompson sub machineguns, and bayonets or anythign else they had to use. thisis realy a pointless debate, it's not exactly like discussing what is superior, a ferrari or a porche. the fact of the matter is, that if you were a soldier and you shot antoehr soldier with a rifle from any make of any country, it will still kill maim or wound things. no veteren from either side felt safe i am sure, wheter fighting a tiger tank, or going up against a platton of russian guards, when your taking cover from the constant noise of shells falling onyour position, you freind are dieing, and you dont know if you going to live for another 10 seconds, does the pointless argument of what is more effective, the 75mm howitzer or the 105mm make a difference?

[Slapdragon]

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

no it's a gun, the soldiers called them guns right? i havent heard any veterens when talking about things like this not refer to it as a gun, mabe you should bring this to their attention too, i'm sure it would be greatly appreciated. i guess i'm just not as interested in wars as you are, there all pretty much the same anyway, i used to read alot about all of them but it got kind of old, do you actualy play this game at all? it's pretty fun you should try it sometime, hehe. oh and the way i see it is if you were a soldier , in a war, for whatever country, everyhting is effective, if it cuts shoots rolls over, crushes or breaks something, it is effective, i thought this was a pretty basic concept of war. if there wa ssome miricle weapon for the germans or allies, the casulaties would be one sided. it's notlike the germans did not lose any lives at the hands of the polish, or the italians were so inadequetely trained and equiped that thier bullets could not pass thru human flesh and kill people, their bombs exploded thier guns did damage, everyones did. sure tiger tanks were good at killing things. so were k-98 rifles. yeah the b-17's were great at killing people, well so were thompson sub machineguns, and bayonets or anythign else they had to use. thisis realy a pointless debate, it's not exactly like discussing what is superior, a ferrari or a porche. the fact of the matter is, that if you were a soldier and you shot antoehr soldier with a rifle from any make of any country, it will still kill maim or wound things. no veteren from either side felt safe i am sure, wheter fighting a tiger tank, or going up against a platton of russian guards, when your taking cover from the constant noise of shells falling onyour position, you freind are dieing, and you dont know if you going to live for another 10 seconds, does the pointless argument of what is more effective, the 75mm howitzer or the 105mm make a difference?<hr></blockquote>

I am sorry, but this is pretty detached from reality. Would you mind rethinking your thesis here, and restating it in a way that can be understood by the general reader? If English is not your first langauge I read several others and would be happy to converse in those (god knows that some times it is better to speak to my wife in Portugeuse even though her English is perfectly fine.)

Lets just restate some of the things since you are a bit confused and this has wandered from topic to topic:

The US 75mm M2 / M3 was an effective weapoin that came as a shock to the Germans. Trying to say it was worthless in a manual being read in 1944 is not a useful argument, since before 1944 it was not only an effective weapon, but feared by the Germans and one of the things which turned the tide on the desert war.

Kasserine was not lost because of superior German equipment, but because of inferior US training.

75mm is a bore diameter, not any single gun. The M2 gun in the US arsenal has a bore diameter of 75mm. No one needs to tell this to any soldiers since it is probably taught to them from the get go.

There is no relationship between the US and German 75s, aside from the fact that they share a bore diameter. Dissing or liking one means nothing to the others.

Research papers vary a great deal, but cannot be dismissed out of hand due to personal bias, but instead must be looked at from a point of view what question is asked, and how is it interested.

Just curious. It is nice someone your age has access to the Internet and an interest in BTS, we have a lot of people your age here that are very interesting to read, but I am interesting in trying to figure out what the heck you are talking about and then having a meaningful exchange of information, if such a thing is possible.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]</p>

[JasonC]

OK, I ran 6 tests on zooks vs. Jagds with skirts. Each with 5 target vehicles, 2 shooters per vehicle. Half the tests used the standard Jgd-IV, the other half used the better Jgd-L70. In each case, I ran one test from the side, another from the front, and the last around 45 degrees side.

The plain Jgd-IV dies every time - 6/6 hits kill from the front (despite the LOS tool kill chance, which doesn't correct for 90% armor quality). 7/7 from the side - skirts didn't help a bit. From 45 side, it was 7/9, with 1 gun hit and 1 lower hull penetration that did no significant damage (hereafter, NSD). Overall kill chance per hit is north of 90%, any aspect. Obviously the combat AAR is not possible with a vehicle of this capability.

The improved Jgd-L70 dies 5/6 hits from the side, again without much help from skirts. If they got around it, it should have died, if the CM zook modeling is accurate. From the other aspects, though, the kills per hit get distinctly harder.

The lower front hull is vunerable because of the low armor quality. The side superstructure and hull are also vunerable. But the upper front hull and front superstructure will bounce everything that hits them. Combined with NSD track and guns hits, and occasional NSD penetrations, one can see a sequence of 4 hits without a kill.

The chance of that rises as the aspect turns to head on, because the lower front hull is a relatively hard plate to hit. From 45 side, the kill chance was about 45%, and getting a string of 4 was therefore unlikely (9%).

If the aspect starts that way, but the Jagd can turn to face the shooters (and those stay near each other), the window of vunerability is shorter, and the kill chance per hit drops to more like 30% (as more front aspect hits enter the picture). Getting 4 of those in a row to not kill is a reasonable 1/4 chance (76% you get it, mind, but possible not to).

And from head on, the kill chance per hit is only 20%, leaving a 40% chance that a string of 4 hits can leave the Jagd still kicking. The basic story is the combat report is compatible with CM bazooka modeling and German armor qualities, but only if the crippled Jagd was able to turn its front armor, or close to it, to the threat. And if this particular Jagd then got lucky to boot, but believable amounts of lucky if it was able to turn after the shooters.

It is possible CM undermodels the spaced armor effectiveness against HEAT of skirts on StuGs and Jagds, where the skirt covers a large portion of the vehicle side, not just the track area. This might explain the AAR better. The high up front hits would fail for reasons CM models well. The lower front hull might not really have been vunerable, because of zook overmodeling and/or German armor quality underrating, for the thinner plates. And the sides might have been much harder to kill with HEAT than CM shows, because of skirting.

I hope this is constructive.

[Ex Bellator]

Quote by iron Cheif Sakai

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> he put his armies lives at uneccessary risk on a regualr basis in a quest for persoanl gain , and glory, <hr></blockquote>

Well, that's the first time I've seen Monty had a go at for this particular line of B******t. I have never seen a more ridiculous comment on this board, and this about the commander who has been pilloried here more times than I can remember for over caution, due to his total belief that men should not be killed unnecessarily. It was this trait in particular which made him so popular with his men. I don't think he was perfect either, but I'd like to see an example of your reasoning.

I doubt that you have read anything regarding the desert war, Moreshead, O'Connor, Wavell were three superb generals I can think of right away. British and Commonwealth units suffered from shortage right until Alamein, fighting in East Africa, Greece, Far East, oh hell, I can't be bothered...

[Dan Robertson]

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

Here is a solution to the problem that will make everyone happy. Set the armor quality to 100%, then make the front plates be 9/10 as thick. Or, leave the quality at 90% and make the side plates be 89mm.

Is there something I don't understand about the penetration computation that would make this not work?<hr></blockquote>

Actually there is a bit of a problem with this. I'm not quite sure which version and with which constants they use but BTS use a variation on the DeMilne DeMarre formula.

When rounds hit a plate at and angle (virtually all shots have some angle) the effect of the slope is determined by the TD ratio thickness (of armour) / diameter of the shell.

Thus is you change TD it will resist differently, so 120mm @ 60 degrees (80% quality) will not resist the same as 96mm @ 60degrees 100%

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I

I had obtained an original copy of WO185/178 about a year ago from PRO, Kew. There are only about 3 pgs of the unabridged report that actually elaborates on the 95mm and its shaped charge capability. Bear in mind the whole report is about 120 pages long and contains numerous letters, tables and graphs. I have scanned the pages that actually address the 95mm and posted them at:

<hr></blockquote>

A fascinating source of information Jeff but I just noticed one thing that seems to have been missed, that scanned report states that the primary role of the 95mm round is for smoke screening and high explosive. In the games I have played where I have used the 95mm armed Churchill & Cromwell I have yet to see any smoke rounds available for use with this weapon. Is this perhaps an oversight by BTS?

Just to make it clear however, I'm not trying to say this is a huge problem which impeaches the whole game or anything as the limited amount of ammo able to be carried of 95mm calibre means that I'm happy to have as many H.E. & "c" rounds as possible! But still a possible error all the same.

Regards

Jim R.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Penetration stats for 0 degree obliquity From: L. Bird & R. Livingston’s “Armor & Gunnery”

UK 95mm HES….127mm<hr></blockquote>

CM number: 125mm

Rexford has spoken. I don't see a problem here.

CM has the bazooka at 90mm at 0 degrees. Does anyone have a sourse with a different value?

[Slapdragon]

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

I doubt that you have read anything regarding the desert war, Moreshead, O'Connor, Wavell were three superb generals I can think of right away. British and Commonwealth units suffered from shortage right until Alamein, fighting in East Africa, Greece, Far East, oh hell, I can't be bothered...<hr></blockquote>

Well, I am not a fan of Monty, but these three Generals I think are some of the best in WW2, bar none. Theye were able to keep the desert war going with nothing during its darkest days, and they did not have Monty's PR section working for them.

[Wreck]

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

When rounds hit a plate at and angle (virtually all shots have some angle) the effect of the slope is determined by the TD ratio thickness (of armour) / diameter of the shell.

Thus is you change TD it will resist differently, so 120mm @ 60 degrees (80% quality) will not resist the same as 96mm @ 60degrees 100%<hr></blockquote>

Do you have an idea of how large an effect this is?

I doubt that the net error introduced would be greater than the 10% currently there. Maybe 1%? If so, then it is still a good idea.

Perhaps it would minimize the error caused by this "TD ratio" if the armor quality was set to 95%, then all of the plates adjusted to match.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

Actually there is a bit of a problem with this. I'm not quite sure which version and with which constants they use but BTS use a variation on the DeMilne DeMarre formula.

When rounds hit a plate at and angle (virtually all shots have some angle) the effect of the slope is determined by the TD ratio thickness (of armour) / diameter of the shell.

Thus is you change TD it will resist differently, so 120mm @ 60 degrees (80% quality) will not resist the same as 96mm @ 60degrees 100%<hr></blockquote>

I don't think that applies to HEAT, neither in reality nor current CMBO modeling.

BTW, the armour quality of the Panther is mainly seen appropriate (by me anyway) because of the nice pictures of Panther fronts cracked open by AP shots. I wonder whether HEAT should obey to the armour quality lowering the same way as AP. Reading about modern armour plates, it occurs to me that HEAT would have have as hard a time going through armour plate with missing components against brittleness as going through a normal plate. On the other hand, armour quality can as well stand for lowering of homogeneity of equal material, in which case HEAT would have it as much easier as AP.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I don't think that applies to HEAT, neither in reality nor current CMBO modeling.<hr></blockquote>

True, but then you have 2 different armor thickness values, which is cumbersome IMO.

A thought just occured to me. According to a post I saw by Rexford a while back, German armor thickness was often thicker than what official spec required, sometimes by as much as 5mm. That right there may explain the KT vs. zook debate as CM seems to use official numbers.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[RMC]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

True, but then you have 2 different armor thickness values, which is cumbersome IMO.

<hr></blockquote>

Why should it be so cumbersome? The old AH MBT game (derived from Yaquinto's old Armor, Panzer, and 88 system) gave each vehicle two armor values; one for KE and the other for CE. It was simple enough for a plyaer to look up on a data card, so it should be a no brainer for the game engine to handle it for the player in CMBB and later games. If it solves a problem in CMBO then why not implement it (given that BTS et al have enough data to produce reasonable vlaues for modelling everything this way)?

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Why should it be so cumbersome? The old AH MBT game (derived from Yaquinto's old Armor, Panzer, and 88 system) gave each vehicle two armor values; one for KE and the other for CE. ?<hr></blockquote>

Because CM uses a formula that takes into account other factors then say armor thickness their are slope modifiers, AOI modifiers, armour quality rateings etc,.

Nor does CM use CRT's or live fire test data for penetration results etc. The research for BTS penetration formula was, derived from:

Penetration of Armour Plate. US Ordnance Board, Aberdeen Proveing Ground, March 1950

I believe the results are the effects of the formula at work.

WW2 tanks did not have ceramic, or chobham, armor, etc, which protects vs KE & SC(HEAT) seprately Ie, an T-72B1 turret offers 520mm RHA vs KE & 950mm RHA vs HEAT, do to the armors composition.

Regards, John Waters

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]</p>

[L.Tankersley]

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

[Lots of stream-of-consciousness ramblings about all sorts of things only tangentially (if at all) related to the topic at hand.]<hr></blockquote>

Dude, you are all over the map. I can't make out what you are arguing about, only that you seem to want to argue with someone about something. I'm guessing you're just a troll, but perhaps English isn't your native language and you're having trouble communicating effectively. In the latter case, let me suggest that instead of spinning the discussion off onto new topics and confrontations every time you post, you simply state what it is you have to contribute to the discussion along with any supporting evidence you may have.

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

WW2 tanks did not have ceramic, or chobham, armor, etc, which protects vs KE & SC(HEAT) seprately Ie, an T-72B1 turret offers 520mm RHA vs KE & 950mm RHA vs HEAT, do to the armors composition.

<hr></blockquote>

And that T-72 still can't stop much. Here's a link to a really cool video I stole from the general forum. Gyrene has seen it before and said the engine landed 500 yards away. Keep an eye out for the turret.

Javelin Test

Whoopsy, watch out, it's 4.5 mb.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]</p>

[PzKpfw 1]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

And that T-72 still can't stop much. Here's a link to a really cool video I stole from the general forum. Gyrene has seen it before and said the engine landed 500 yards away. Keep an eye out for the turret.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]<hr></blockquote>

And what was the T-72 to do vs an Top Attack wpn?, you can try the same test with an M1A2 and get the same results, as the top armour is the most vulnerable part of any current MBT.

Now had the T-72 had an ARENA sytstem or KONTAKT-5 ERA, then it might have been interesting ..

Regards, John Waters

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]</p>

[offtaskagain]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

And what was the T-72 to do vs an Top Attack wpn?, you can try the same test with an M1A2 and get the same results, as the top armour is the most vulnerable part of any current MBT.

Now had the T-72 had an ARENA sytstem or KONTAKT-5 ERA, then it might have been interesting ..

Regards, John Waters

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<hr></blockquote>

From the video that didn't look like it hit the top. I know the javelin is a top attack weapon but it appears the missle hit the side.

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

From the video that didn't look like it hit the top. I know the javelin is a top attack weapon but it appears the missle hit the side.<hr></blockquote>

Freeze the video and you can see it coming in nearly vertical. Well, ok, at about 60-70°. It seems to hit the top of the turret.

[Battlefront.com]

Panzerwerfer42 wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>From the video that didn't look like it hit the top. I know the javelin is a top attack weapon but it appears the missle hit the side.<hr></blockquote>

It did. Know how I know? I know the guy who actually shot that particular missle Before I had seen the test results (I assume the same one you looked at) he had mentioned how his previous shot was a bit off. The problem was the tank was sitting on top of hard packed Alabama soil in the middle of summer. This made the hit just a little less accurte than desired, but obviously the results were not disapointing

Oh, John... you are correct about the Aberdeen report. That was indeed the basis for Combat Mission's initial ballistics/armor model. However, Charles found its shortcomings and got in touch with Lorrin Bird (Rexford) and Robert Livingston. They filled in some gaps as well as presented augmented equations to help fix the slope angle problem noted in the original report. The materials provided to Charles, before the Beta Demo was released, were invaluable. This information was the working copy of what they recently published. Charles, of course, has a copy of this fine publication. He even paid for it

Lorrin and Robert's names were not included in the original printing of the manual (so many details, so little time!), but this was corrected on our 2nd and later print runs.

Steve

(correction because I keep insisting on spelling Lorrin's name incorrectly )

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[PzKpfw 1]

Regardless of the hit location i still say it would have been more interesting had the T-72 had K-5 & an ARENA ...

Regards, John Waters

[PeterNZer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Now had the T-72 had an ARENA sytstem or KONTAKT-5 ERA, then it might have been interesting ..

<hr></blockquote>

Ok, enlighten me. What's an ARENA system? Sounds a bit Roman to me..

[Patgod]

Arse Rockets Engaged Near Alabama

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Patgod ]</p>

[Iron Chef Sakai]

weh did i say the american and german 75 were related? i mean if i did, the n you'd be right, but again your just provng points to yourself that i never thought. the german 75 was actualy better. the allies had superior equipment then the germans up to around 1942. the ealry german armor was inferior to french, british, and russian armor, as was especialy the guns mounted on thier tanks. the 37mm just didnt cut it,except against the polish anemic armor. the 50mm was also not a wise decison for an upgrade. it was better then the 37mm but just wasn't quite good enough. i would aslo like to add that the britsh matildas had a very anemic gun as well, but at least they were heavily armored. the russians were the only ones who had it right at the time. they had all the pieces to the puzzle except communication of their vehicles. wich the germans had. the french b1bis heavy was a monster, problem was the it's huge 75mm gun was a fixed emplacement on it's hull make it more of a tank destroeyer then and actualy tank, also it was very, very slow. the germans had speed and communication on their side, as well as revelutionary tactics and brilliant leaderships, the tanks they had form 1939-1941 were far from the best in the world, though the panzer crews were very skilled in using what they had to the best of their advantage. 39-41 the germans had adequate tanks, sure they could take out enemy tanks, but left much to be desired in performance on the battle field. not unlike the americans stiull using their work horse shermans till the end of the war against monsrous german tanks and td's. what the germans did have during these years was a superior air force. and just as improtant, the best trained infantry in the world. tanks compliment infantry well, but the truth of war is that infantry decide who wins the battle and who holds the ground. even kursk, the biggest tank battle ever to happen in history, had even larger clashes of men against men, in the salientm an example of wich, the waffen ss taking prohvaroska. wich is pretty impressive that they could accomlish that, considering they were impaling themsevles on a thick layered defense that had been prepared for months. and as much as it impresses me that your wife most likely forced you to learn broken portugese in order to probably score long before you were married, i think that my english is fine, if your going to make fun of something, you should start with my typing since you've never heard me actualy speak