German Armor Quality

[rexford]

The WW II Weapon Hit Probability data presented by John Salt gives rough equivalents for German tank armor compared to British machineable quality (MQ) homogeneous armor.

Tiger and Panther armor equivalent to British MQ armor, PzKpfw III and IV MQ armor about 10% more resistant.

No talk of a 0.85 deficiency for all Panther armor.

Not to sound like an Uber-Tank fanatic, but 75L40 APCBC penetration is about 7% higher than U.S. test data in TM-9-1907, and if PzKpfw IVH armor is 10% more resistant than British than CM overestimates 75L40 APCBC penetration capability against PzKpfw IVH by about 17%.

Thousands of destroyed PzKpfw IVH's, cluttering up CM battlefields and filling the air with their burning smoke, cry out for justice!

[Tris]

Plant a PzKpfw IVH today. Do it for your children.

(ormaybethatwassomeothercommercial)

[Simon Fox]

You ought to be ashamed of yourself rexford for citing the commentary of John Salt (a secondary source) completely out of the context in which it was clearly stated that these comparisons are "rough" and "The original document emphatically stresses the approximate nature of these results".

More completely from John Salts precise of WO 291/171, "Effectiveness of British anti-tank guns" dated 1943,

The original document emphatically stresses the approximate nature of these results, and cautions that they should be treated as comparative rather than absolute figures. It details the definitions used, simplifying assumptions made, and in some cases assesses the distortion these may cause.

Comparative meaning not armour but the relative performance of British AT guns.

and

Armour quality has been treated as falling into three categories. German machineable-quality (MQ) armour on the Panther and Tiger has been treated as equivalent to British MQ. The MQ armour on the Panzer III and Panzer IV has been treated

as equivalent to a 10% greater thickness of British MQ. The face-hardened (FH) plate has been taken as having a critical impact velocity for penetration 500 feet per second greater than British MQ with respect to AP projectiles, 200 feet per second greater with respect to APCBC. The first assumption is regarded as reasonable; the second as rough, possibly tending to overestimate the German armour; and the final assumption is thought to be very doubtful.

Sheesh!

Dear Parent,

Rexford started out this semester with some outstanding and carefully researched assignments. Now however, he appears to have become somewhat lazy and prone to 'resting on his laurels'. I suggest an interview with the headmaster and a good caning would be in order.

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

"As has been said, we only listen to bootlickers, and Simon is one of the best out there!"

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

You ought to be ashamed of yourself rexford for citing the commentary of John Salt (a secondary source) completely out of the context in which it was clearly stated that these comparisons are "rough" and "The original document emphatically stresses the approximate nature of these results".

Dear Parent,

Rexford started out this semester with some outstanding and carefully researched assignments. Now however, he appears to have become somewhat lazy and prone to 'resting on his laurels'. I suggest an interview with the headmaster and a good caning would be in order.

Jeez Simon, give the guy (or collective) a break! He/Them have just been trying to impress the headmaster (BTS) with his knowledge and various sources... even if some of them may be a bit dubious. In my view he's/they're well on the way to becoming head prefect of the Grognard School of Combat Mission (motto: "Pro Grognard et Patria").

Regards

Jim R.

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Dear Parent,

Rexford started out this semester with some outstanding and carefully researched assignments. Now however, he appears to have become somewhat lazy and prone to 'resting on his laurels'. I suggest an interview with the headmaster and a good caning would be in order.

Yeah take him out to the acc-shack and cane him good.

I have already put the word out about reXford and his crew. As usual you are late again simon.

[PzKpfw 1]

Damn Simon he sad he was refering to Salt's website. I'm sure if you want to discuss primary source material over secondary you'd both have an interesting time .

And User consider this BTS is already useing Rex's groups work & has been since CM was made, So I think Charles & Steve thourougly checked equasions etc; before useing it in the code, I also believe if they have a problem with any data Rex has posted publicly they will bring it up with him or Robert for clarification etc.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 02-05-2001).]

[Jeff Duquette]

The War Office reports included on Salts page are basically studies\testing conducted during the war by British Army Operational Research Groups. WO291/171 Was undertaken by AORS4(a) or AORS4(. I guess I am wondering if Operational Research Group reports are not a "Primary Source" what would be considered a primary source?

Actually the commentary tagged on by John Salt at the end of WO291/171, and quoted above by Simon should be considered watered down information, i.e. a secondary source. With all due respect to John Salt for providing Operational Research Studies on the Internet, his commentary at the end of each War Office Report doesn't substitute for the actual context of the reports. The actual data presented however, should -- in my mind - be considered a "Primary Source".

[Paul Lakowski]

The qualitative superiority of German armor is not new , has been reported by Jentz years ago. I remember having talks with Robert Livingston on this and he reported that its due to the poor carbon content in allied armor [ 0.3 compared to 0.5 in German armor]. Looking at it from a modern POV most modern armor duplicates the higher German carbon content armor.

So its time for you all to go back to school

[TheDesertFox]

So its time for you all to go back to school

ROFL! I fear that wont happen. Wasn´t there someone who said that Waffenpruefamt data are anecdotal ?

But you are correct. Someone really has to do research on primary sources if he wants to get certain things right.

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: TheDesertFox@gmx.net

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Hey, don't get me wrong... I still think the entity known as rexford posts some really good stuff on AFV's and the way Combat Mission handles them differently compared with his data. I'm certainly not in the :Username: camp of wishing to denigrate his/their contributions if I'm interpreting "Users" posting correctly.

Just like to poke a bit of fun to lighten things up occasionally.

Regards

Jim R.

Regards

Jim R.

[Skipper]

Let me put it straight (hopefully).

1. German steel quality varied dramatically throughout the war.

2. At the beginning, it was good.

3. By 1943-45, Germany had big problems with commodity supplies. For black metallurgy that meant lack of nickel and other additives thath make the steel strong (aint know the right english technological term here).

4. That means that many (if not all) german tanks produced late in the war had poor quality armor plates.

5. The last statement is supported by:

(a) firing tests in Kubinka Poligon - reports on Pz-V and Pz-VIB mention poor quality of armor plate material; and

( numerous accounts of frontal armor plates (even Pz-V) literally cracking up under 120 mm HE shells (as you probably know, when a tank sees another tank and has HE loaded, the SOP is to fire the HE at it first and then load the AP for a second shot).

So, 85% quality rating is not out of the blue. It's another thing that in reallife it was widely varied.

[This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-06-2001).]

[Abteilung]

In 1944 Germany implemented the use of gas cutting techniques (oxy-acetalene, etc). This was necessary due to the absolute shortage of tungsten, which had been used to tip the tools that cut and shaped armor plates. These new techniques also made it a LOT easier to produce FHA en masse versus RHA. I cannot remember where I read this off hand (as I'm at work currently), but if anyone can validate this with references I would greatly appreciate it. Cheers and thanks for reading my rabble.

[:USERNAME:]

Ive read that also Abteilung. They also used current hardening for the armor. A large electrical current is passed through the plate from front to back to harden it.

[rexford]

Now that I got your attention with a weighty bit of data from the Salt mine:

Russians said Tiger II quality wasn't up to Panther and Tiger. Brits say Tiger and Panther equivalent to British MQ armor. U.S. tests show Tiger and Panther about equal to American test plate.

So 0.85 probably doesn't apply to entire Panther armor if hardly anyone rags on about the overall poor quality armor.

But one great thing brought up in thread, FHA easier for Germans to make than RHA? This might help to explain why so many German tanks with FHA so late in war. A source on this would be terrific.

The armor penetration booklet is about a month away from completion, checking everything again for fifth time and computing FHA penetration for M77 and T33 90mm rounds.

Booklet will cover these topics:

1. Slope Effects

AP, APC/APCBC. APBC, tungsten, HEAT

Data behind T/D theory.

2. High Hardness Modifiers

3. Cast Armor Deficiency to RHA

4. Armor Flaws (done correctly), British armor resistance as function of thickness and impacting projectile

5. Shatter Gap (the real story)

6. Spaced and add-on armor, and edge effects

(analysis of mid-production Tiger E mantlet edges vs. 57,76,85,90,100,122 and 152)

7. Turret hit probability and round mantlets

8. Compound angles and slope effects

9. Penetration data keyed to how much U.S. test plate (good quality, 240 Brinell) can be defeated on half the hits. For Germans, British, Russians, Americans and a Italian guns and ammo. Penetration data includes 37mm at 2600 and 2900 fps muzzle velocity firing AP and APCBC, against homogeneous and face-hardened armor. Plus 75L31 and 75L40 firing AP and APCBC. And 17 pdr AP and APCBC.

10. Trajectory analysis and hit probability aspects, including dispersion and gun elevation relative to target aim point

11. AFV armor stats and angles by type: face-hardened, cast, high-hardness, tendency to have flaws (only the Panther glacis, and not all the time), spaced, layered, etc.

Not all tanks will be addressed, but data is readily available for ones that will be outside booklet.

12. Robert Livingston's excellent work on mid-production Tiger mantlet thicknesses, M4A1 hull front thickness/angles, and Russian armor hardness as function of thickness and year.

13. Penetration data for 122mm APBC as function of angle and range based on U.S. firing tests against U.S. RHA, penetration data for other Soviet APBC derived from 122mm tests and is consistent with other sources for APBC penetration by 76, 85, 100, etc.

14. Penetration of Russian AP against homogeneous and face-hardened armor derived from nose hardness considerations, and results compare well with other sources. Russian face-hardened penetration is badly needed since many panzers in Russian used FHA on front, side and rear. PzKpfw IIIg, for example, and PzKpfw IVf and g. And Stug III.

And original Panther glacis.

Much of the data is estimated from DeMarre and Krupp equations, but it has been cross-checked against other sources and tests and appears to result in reasonable figures.

We noted that 2 pounder AP penetration against homogeneous armor was similar to 37mm AP against U.S. plate in terms of DeMarre constant. So we figured they may have had similar constants against face-hardened, so we estimated 2 pdr AP FHA pen. from 37mm AP.

The results were compared to Jentz' data for 2 pdr AP penetration of 30mm FHA on PzKpfw III side, and results are very good. Alot of our work went on like this. Alot of extrapolations but they compare well with firing tests against real tanks and make up a consistent data base.

If one wants a complete set of penetration data against RHA and FHA, this approach has to be used.

We did not penalize U.S. ammo for shatter by reducing pen. because U.S. test plate was about same as German armor later in war. And shatter gap doesn't reduce penetration, it causes failure when penetration is too great!

U.S. ammo did fade against face-hardened armor for some reason, so we used the data as is.

There are some more things that will be in the booklet, we will be finishing it up over the next few weeks and then it should be ready.

When is CM going to randomize APDS accuracy and penetration so the game duplicates real life? Randomize Panther glacis quality, too.

Got to go back to the fact shack for more data.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Let me put it straight (hopefully).

1. German steel quality varied dramatically throughout the war.

2. At the beginning, it was good.

Actually at the beginning it was superior

3. By 1943-45, Germany had big problems with commodity supplies. For black metallurgy that meant lack of nickel and other additives thath make the steel strong (aint know the right english technological term here).

Which then brought the armor down to 'average',but Tigers still had superior armor while Stugs went without face hardening .... as did most tanks after mid to late 1943.However the plate hardness was still good untill mid to late 44 when thick armor was 220-240 BHN and Hetzers were produced with mild steel flank armor [ 198 BHN].

4. That means that many (if not all) german tanks produced late in the war had poor quality armor plates.

5. The last statement is supported by:

(a) firing tests in Kubinka Poligon - reports on Pz-V and Pz-VIB mention poor quality of armor plate material; and

( numerous accounts of frontal armor plates (even Pz-V) literally cracking up under 120 mm HE shells (as you probably know, when a tank sees another tank and has HE loaded, the SOP is to fire the HE at it first and then load the AP for a second shot).

Actually the results you speak of where due to the poor state of welding towards wars end [iE last year]. These created weakened zones that may or maynot effect impact ...depends on distance of impact to weld in projectile diameters. The bigger the warhead the larger this zone.

So, 85% quality rating is not out of the blue. It's another thing that in reallife it was widely varied.

I disagree it seems that all armor varied in hardness and other factors.In ballistic test this explains the large variation [ up to ± 20%]. If the game includes this then no more modification is needed. I would suggest that late model Panthers should be 100% , but increase that 'weakened zone' figure to allow higher chance of plate failure.

[Skipper]

Kubinka reports specifically mention poor armor plate material on the Tiger. Poor welding, too.

As for the cracking due to welds, you may be right, but again what i've read spoke about the quality of steel.

It was not only Pz-VI's problem, but all other tanks, including Pz-V varieties too.

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Kubinka reports specifically mention poor armor plate material on the Tiger. Poor welding, too.

As for the cracking due to welds, you may be right, but again what i've read spoke about the quality of steel.

It was not only Pz-VI's problem, but all other tanks, including Pz-V varieties too.

I had a talk with Valera on RMZ about that and they weren't clear on what was meant by poor quality armor . He recongnized that the reference to 'poor quality' could just mean that the Tigers had armor with a hardness of only 220-240 BHN.

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by rexford:

Got to go back to the fact shack for more data.

Maybe the pamphlet is going to highlight you all's conjecture so we can seperate it from fact. I think in light of your poor showing in the "accuracy" thread recently that everything rambling-rex et al posts/publishes has anything to do with fact.

You make very large leaps 'o logic in your proclamations that undermine your intentions.

Beware the fact shack attacks...

Lewis

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by :USERNAME::

I think in light of your poor showing in the "accuracy" thread recently

Yeah, and the Giants won the Super Bowl.

Jeff Heidman

[Paul Lakowski]

Lewis , whats your problem! jealous?

[Freak]

I dont like to butt in like this but rexfords posts are informative and welcomed addition to the forum, unlike other jab like posts.