WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery - the new book

[Kwazydog]

Heya Guys,

This is a post Charles made in the General Forum. Unfortuantely it was getting lost pretty quickly over there so I thought we would move it here just for those CMer's whom missed it.

________________________________________

Yesterday I received my copy of World War Two Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery from Overmatch Press, written by two contributors to the Combat Mission forum here, Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert Livingston.

Folks, I am impressed.

The book is 136 pages long and covers a tremendous amount of detail, in subjects like armor types, slope effects, hardness, flaws, shot shatter, spaced plates, edge effects, penetration (full and partial, with probability), striking velocity calculations, characteristics of tungsten ammunition (several types), and more.

Further it contains specific analyses of real-world test data, including explanations of results that otherwise appear anomalous.

It's also written in a style accessible to wargamers not just scientists, which is a refreshing change from a lot of the source materials I've dealt with before. Some basic knowledge of armor and ammunition types is required to understand various abbreviations and nomenclature, but no one who plays Combat Mission should have any difficulty with it.

It's going to take me a while to dig deeply through all the material presented here. It's comprehensive and thorough.

If you have any interest in the subject of armor penetration and gunnery I suggest you get a copy of this book. Remember that Lorrin and Robert and their team are a small group and they can use your support.

To order:

For U.S.: $29.95 for book rate postage, $2.20 extra for priority mail, NY addresses add applicable sales tax. Orders should be sent to (in US Dollars):

Lorrin Bird

P.O. Box 943

Latham, NY 12110

USA

Non-USA orders should e-mail Lorrin Bird at rexford179@cs.com for details.

Charles

[Snake Eyes]

Let me add my praise for this fine work. It explains many aspects of ballistics that are not covered in the dry statistics of shot, armor and penetration. Not all WWII AP rounds were created equal and not all armor was either. How Charles applies the treasure he gleans from this work will be very interesting, indeed.

World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery is a must read for all serious wargamers.

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Snake Eyes ]

[Juardis]

Dan, please post this obviously off topic post in the general forum. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter

:lol

Just kidding, thanks for the heads up. I don't ever go to the general forum and would surely have missed this.

[Viceroy]

There is also a review at http://www.wargamer.com/

[rexford]

Thanks for kind words on book.

We are presently working on face-hardened penetration estimates for Russian APBC ammo, for which there are no sources or even hints.

And a simplified hit resolution system is under development for major U.S. and German vehicles, which is for armor miniature game table use and may be expanded to other countries forces.

The face-hardened penetration figures for Russian APBC will be released in near future as book errata.

Thanks for helping to get the word out.

[rexford]

One of the book errata deal with tungsten core shatter, which primarily occurs when tungsten rounds strike at over 3300 fps and hit at certain angles, which mostly impacts APDS.

In tests against German tanks, APDS would often fail when it had too much penetration, which we thought was due to wobble. It was due to nose shatter. Guess tungsten wasn't as great as people thought.

Data is presented in book errata for tungsten shatter as a function of impact angle and velocity.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I could not agree more with what Charles has written.

If WW2 armour penetration is of interest to you then the Rexford book is a “must have” buy.

Covers the subject in a manner no other book does.

There are two factors that set it apart.

The first is the amount of information, test results and such, that have been gathered in one place. The second is the clear way the test results are all analysed and compared.

As I say, a “must have” buy if this stuff interests you.

All the best,

Kip.

[rexford]

One of the book aspects which we are particularly proud of is the Tiger mantlet section, which presents three scaled drawings of the mantlet on one page, with views from the front, side view through MG area and side view through vision openings.

These drawings represent the state of the art work on Tiger mantlet as they indicate thickness through the armor, as well as weakened areas that were hollowed out. The presentation of these drawings took a combined and lengthy effort from both book authors, Mr. Byrden from Ireland and Mr. Erk from Saumur Armor Museum.

Photographs from the Saumur Museum were used in the book to illustrate various important issues regarding Tiger mantlet resistance, including the tapered mantlet edges and the 100mm thick turret front bars that back-up the tapered mantlet edges.

[Maximus]

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

I don't ever go to the general forum and would surely have missed this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should, there are some very interesting discussions going on over there as all of us old time CM'ers have discussed to death game mechanics and now we talk politics, religion, law, and Jenna Bush.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Original drivel by Maxipad:

... all of us old time CM'ers ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a pompous statement, but then I guess it suits your style Maxipad. IMHO that's reason enough to not go there.

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Username]

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

What a pompous statement, but then I guess it suits your style Maxipad. IMHO that's reason enough to not go there.

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you were an old time CM-ur you would know that Maxipuss' real name is Old Blunderin Butt.

He's an OK guy. He has an old hippy caretaker clean up after him (hes a plegic). Sometimes the hippy sneaks into 'B'Butts room and trys out that old hippy free love on him. Kind of sad really..

Lewis

PS Just kiddin max

[Username]

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

There is also a review at http://www.wargamer.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These reviews arent exactly glowing. Ones lukewarm and the other is a little degrading.

I think the cover art could be stepped up a little. It is actually wrong if the projectile is low velocity. Anyone know why?

But I wish ya luck rexfurd. I suggested you get a proof reader but you didnt want to listen did you?

Lewis

[argie]

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

What a pompous statement, but then I guess it suits your style Maxipad. IMHO that's reason enough to not go there.

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

C'mon, Jon!. We make great fun of Maximun's statements in the General Forum! You are really missing it!

[JonS]

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

If you were an old time CM-ur ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does August '99 grab you?

[Michael Emrys]

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

Thanks for kind words on book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Say Rexford, I had no idea you were Lorrin Bird. I used to read your articles in the wargame magazines during the '70s and '80s. I don't recall which ones off the top of my head, but Panzerfaust, Campaign and The General are likely candidates. Nice to run into you here and see you are still doing such sterling research and reporting.

:cool:

Michael

[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

These reviews arent exactly glowing. Ones lukewarm and the other is a little degrading.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here are the summaries for each of the 2 reviews:

World War II Ballistics reads like a mathematical proof, but it is also, albeit somewhat indirectly, a work of industrial history. Within the narrow arc of its subject, the authors condense a staggering amount of material and frequently emerge with little known, but crucial details. This reviewer was fascinated by the description of variance in the thickness of Panther glacis, or Tiger tank welds that shattered when struck with a hammer. Wargame designers will certainly appreciate the incredible wealth of mathematical models, like the "Theoretical hit probability method," which could significantly enhance the quality of armor combat simulation. Despite its organizational flaws, Bird and Livingston's World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery is certain to become a standard reference and could well be the starting point for a much more robust study of military technology and the people who created it.

...

World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery will provide both wargamers and historians many insights into the mechanics of armor penetration. It will give the wargame designer a set of tools for the design of armor combat formulas and it will help the historian to understand the problems associated with published penetration tables and armor resistance data. As there are no other commonly available books that deals with the subject, " World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery is recommended despite some of its shortcomings.

Hopefully Charles is aware of the errata, as there is apparently an error in one of the formulas for Soviet APBC.

[rexford]

A response to the Wargamer reviews that clarifies some points and responds to reviewer questions has been posted on the following site: http://www.wargamer.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

The response is in the After Action Reports section.

Book errata and the web site address at Saumur for existing and any future additions or clarifications are mailed with each copy and Charles received the errata with his order.

The book equations and findings were developed over a 25 year period, and extensive proofreading and review of equations was done prior to publication. The Russian APBC penetration curves were received and analyzed late in the game and the original equations were thought to be okay.

We then found that the APBC slope effects for angles above 55° were not as accurate as could be, and we developed better equations and a revised curve.

The source we used for 90mm T33 ammo had 2700 fps muzzle velocity, the actual figure was 2800 fps. And one penetration at range figure was incorrect.

While we did not use footnotes, the bibliography is annotated so that the sources include a statement as to what is relevant to the book. There are about 13 pages of references at the back of the book.

Note that both reviews in The Wargamer indicate that our book is the only one of its kind, and they emphasize the value as a reference. Both reviews recommend the book.

We're developing an armor miniatures system for micro-armour and larger scales, and have used the book data to produce wargame tables and procedures. Extensive play testing indicates that no major changes to book material is anticipated beyond those already included as errata. The stuff in the book and errata works well and produces good results.

So, in response to reviewer questions, we have looked things over carefully and used the equations and curves after the need for the original errata, and things look fine.

[rexford]

Publishing errata for the book was discouraged by some friends since it might look bad. Since the changes were important and we did not anticipate major future revisions, we wanted book users to have the correct information as early as possible even if some sales might be lost due to appearances.

One of the strongpoints of CM has been the willingness of BTS to consider the need for changes as they arise, and to implement justified revisions. Some typo's were contained in the original CM publication (75L48 muzzle velocity and penetration, tungsten core slope effects), and the game has been corrected.

Large productions are bound to have a few things here and there in the original versions that could be improved upon. After living with the book data and equations for many years, and using the information in wargame design and posts on various sites, the validity of published information looks good.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Good to hear Rexford. Thanks for the update.

[rexford]

In response to Michael emrys post, thanks for remembering those long ago days. I was a contributing editor at Campaign magazine and contributed to AFV NEWS, The General and various other publications.

The AFV To Kill system that was contained in one of my Campaign magazine articles was adopted for use in Advanced Squad Leader. Our current work on an armor miniatures system uses the data from our book to significantly improve upon the accuracy of armor miniatures hit resolution, though the new work is a bit more involved.

[Doug Beman]

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

Originally posted by Username:

If you were an old time CM-ur ...

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

How does August '99 grab you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we're gonna play that game, May 99.

DjB

[Herr Oberst]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Originally posted by JonS

If we're gonna play that game, May 99.

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arrgh, you beat me by a lousy two weeks you old fart.

[rexford]

The next few days will produce errata pages dealing with face-hardened penetration of Russian APBC, for which no published data or info exists.

Putting together a model for this required extensive review of combat penetration range reports against German tanks, and the estimates will be combat report based.

Paul Lakowski provided a modern report that tested a blunt nosed penetrator against homogeneous armor, where projectile hardness matched Russian APBC and armor hardness was similar to WW II American armor. The results suggest that DeMarre type equations can be used to estimate penetration if a few data points are found.

The estimates will be the best that currently exist, since none exist, but they will match some combat reports and be reasonable.

Our book states that face-hardened penetration data for Russian APBC is one of the major research issues from WW II, and our estimates will address the problem.

Following tank areas were face-hardened: PzKpfw III and IV frontal armor, Panther D hull front and side, Panther A hull side, StuG III front, early Tiger II turret side.

Sherman 75mm penetrates 81mm of homogeneous armor at 500m, and 95mm of face-hardened plate. Face-hardened armor penetration is a major issue.

[Scipio]

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

Publishing errata for the book was discouraged by some friends since it might look bad. Since the changes were important and we did not anticipate major future revisions, we wanted book users to have the correct information as early as possible even if some sales might be lost due to appearances.

One of the strongpoints of CM has been the willingness of BTS to consider the need for changes as they arise, and to implement justified revisions. Some typo's were contained in the original CM publication (75L48 muzzle velocity and penetration, tungsten core slope effects), and the game has been corrected.

Large productions are bound to have a few things here and there in the original versions that could be improved upon. After living with the book data and equations for many years, and using the information in wargame design and posts on various sites, the validity of published information looks good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This means, this material is used in CM:Bo already, or will be used in CM:BB?

This would mean the end of my doubts about armor penetration!?

[Paul Lakowski]

Lorrin , on the question of Tiger-1 mantle thickness, did we ever settle on a figure?

Also I have other research papers that do deal with short blunt penetrators @ varing velocities including against armor -some hardened -but nothing on face hardened armor...no one uses it any more, so not much point in testing it.

I'll digg through what I have later.