STUGGED UP AGAIN

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Jason reminded me that we were actually "talking" about 1941-era combat with 45mm turret front T-34s.

Hmm... the beginning of the thread makes much more sense now, seeing how J. was explicitly discussing the T-34 41, and how often Someone Else was talking about a later model. The 500m vrs. 800m bickering esp.

Though I don't understand this:

The frontal armour of the T-34 could be penetrated only by 5cm antitank shell, within 500m” (Glantz comparing 1941 tanks 1998). S.J Zaloga and James Grandsen 1985 work “Operation Barbarossa” also bear this out.

"Glantz comparing 1941 tanks..." The 1941 T-34?

"only by 5cm antitank shell, within 500m" So the 50mm guns _couldn't_ penetrate '41 T-34 front armor beyond 500m?

"frontal armor" - Or is that supposed to mean "front hull armor"?

:confused:

Tarq though is my new internet buddy after showing me the joy of MR rollyeyes

Remember, Mr. can be your friend, but like any emoticon, must be treated with respect. </font>

[Tarquelne]

Read Zaloga el-guapo (ah screw it, remember 30deg oblique angles).

First - The post I'm responding to is the one you followed with "no replies, no dodging?" Well, there's my direct reply to the post and, personally, I consider "go read the source " to be _your_ dodge.

Second - 30 deg? So what - the front turret already has a range of angles available. Are you saying they aimed _only_ at the 30deg portions. If so: At 500m the turret (at least according to CMBB) should still be penetrated sometimes at 500m.

Could you just answer my questions? I don't have Zaloga, and it'll be several days before I could get to the local library to start whipping the ILL people into getting it. They weren't supposed to be rhetorical questions, btw, but sincire requests for information. If there's a problem with my intrepretation of the paragraph, or information I'm missing, I'd be glad to hear of it. That is, as a matter of fact, why I asked the questions.

Or maybe someone else? I like how in the past posters here would sometimes _explain things._, and am hopeing to see more in the future. I suppose I'm being "tiresome" like JC, now, eh, B?

And of course it makes sense when Jason is using 1942 era reports as a basis of representation for 1941.

And we all thank you for bringing that up. Eventaully. Just like, eventually, you stopped quoting '42 T-34 performance when '41 performance was the issue.

Think of it this way: Mr. is a two edged sword.

But there were some other reports I don't think you ever delt with.... (esp. those from people who almost certainly aren't JC.) If all you want to do is demonstrate that a number of the reports JC cited were rotten choices, I think you've done that. If you want to refute JC's claims, I don't think you have. You've made him refine is claims and arguments, but, - and I'm admiting I might be wrong, I think everyone should try it - I don't think you've scuppered him completely. There's still unanswered questions.

Like, for example the big one: What _should_ the % of ricochet's be between 500 and 1000m? You've stated you don't want to (close paraphrase) "play Jason's game and just make figures up." That's _good_. So if you could supply some not-made-up-figures (or some AARs that don't leave Jason wiggle-room, or _something_) I think it would go a long way toward resolving this issue to everyone's satisfaction but Jason's. ( to you, Jason.) C'mon, wouldn't that be nice?

[ February 04, 2003, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

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

Read Zaloga el-guapo (ah screw it, remember 30deg oblique angles).

First - The post I'm responding to is the one you followed with "no replies, no dodging?" Well, there's my direct reply to the post and, personally, I consider "go read the source " to be _your_ dodge.

Second - 30 deg? So what - the front turret already has a range of angles available. Are you saying they aimed _only_ at the 30deg portions. If so: At 500m the turret (at least according to CMBB) should still be penetrated sometimes at 500m.

Could you just answer my questions? I don't have Zaloga, and it'll be several days before I could get to the local library to start whipping the ILL people into getting it. They weren't supposed to be rhetorical questions, btw, but sincire requests for information. If there's a problem with my intrepretation of the paragraph, or information I'm missing, I'd be glad to hear of it. That is, as a matter of fact, why I asked the questions.

Or maybe someone else? I like how in the past posters here would sometimes _explain things._, and am hopeing to see more in the future. I suppose I'm being "tiresome" like JC, now, eh, B?

And of course it makes sense when Jason is using 1942 era reports as a basis of representation for 1941.

And we all thank you for bringing that up. Eventaully. Just like, eventually, you stopped quoting '42 T-34 performance when '41 performance was the issue.

Think of it this way: Mr. is a two edged sword.

</font>

[Tarquelne]

Dschugaschwili:

The T-34 turret front is really neither a cyl. or a sphere... and I think it's slopes would actually perform better. So: Eh?

(Or do you think the cyl (or sphere) model in the game is only being applied to part of the turret front, and the rest is sloped?)

I'm not sure about Jason's use of "30 degree mean", but I do know that 30 degrees is an important angle, at least in the common 750m 50L42 test. vrs. the '41 T-34: At 750m - according to the in game info chart (yes, we all know it doesn't tell the whole story) - the 50L42 should be just on the borderline between penetration and non-penetration at 30%. IF the chart is telling the whole story then there seems to be something wrong - it implies that 50% of the shots should be ricochets. Quite possibly BFC has realistically accounted for some ballistic factor, or a geometric one that your investigation will uncover, which explains the in-game results. But maybe there's a flaw.

[Tarquelne]

in your rush to find something, anything damaging at all ... You on the other hand, attempt to insinuate that I was putting words in Jason’s mouth and then embark on a program of pulling quotes without understanding them in an attempt to “catch me out”.

What can I say? I reject your claims, and state that I was simply trying to understand. PEOPLE SOMETIMES ASK QUESTIONS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND. , but in the nastiest way possible. You may behave differently B - your frequent personal comments make this seem likely. But the quote seemed to directly and unambiguously contradict your postion, and I was _asking_ you to clarify things. At this point I think it is worth mentioning that sometimes people don't _answer_ questions because they are defensive, intolerant, arrogant, and have themselves failed to understand something relevent.

I really don't feel up to taking on Jasons self appointed defender of the faith [/QB]

Can I borrow your blinkers sometime? (Yes, _that's_ a saracstic question. Well done.)

[ February 04, 2003, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Tarquelne]

2-post

[ February 04, 2003, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />in your rush to find something, anything damaging at all ... You on the other hand, attempt to insinuate that I was putting words in Jason’s mouth and then embark on a program of pulling quotes without understanding them in an attempt to “catch me out”.

What can I say? I reject your claims, and state that I was simply trying to understand. PEOPLE SOMETIMES ASK QUESTIONS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND. , but in the nastiest way possible. You may behave differently B - you're frequent personal comments seem to make this likely. But the quote seemed to directly and unambiguously contradict your postion, and I was _asking_ you to clarify things. At this point I think it is worth mentioning that sometimes people don't _answer_ questions because they are defensive, intolerant, arrogant, and have themselves failed to understand something relevent.

I really don't feel up to taking on Jasons self appointed defender of the faith

Can I borrow your blinkers sometime? (Yes, _that's_ a saracstic question. Well done.) [/QB]</font>

[Tarquelne]

Sure, sure using Mr: is always the first choice in showing an evenhanded willingness to "understand" anothers viewpoint.

Look at the thread, and count the frequency of from you, and from me. Yes, that _is_ how I started out in this discussion, but it was because I really thought you were making a big mistake. And If I've continued to question you it's is because I think you were being less clear than Mr. Verbose. Sorry if that offended you - some people don't like it at all. But I do think that if you'd been more willing to "share" the limited understand you currently have with Jason would have been reached much sooner, and possiby have been complete: You keep leaving him wiggle-room. IIRC most of my questions were attempts to define his "areas of freedom" and cut down the wiggles.

No argument I see, not even a parroting of Jason's or attempts to catch me out.

No argument because I don't think you respond to such things. No parroting of Jason or attempts to "catch you out" because that's not what I'm here to do.

Heck, at this point I think JC is probably _completely_ wrong, and that Andreas's latest post explains where the confusion comes from.

My willingness to “talk” with you is gone, a good day to.

B, you're willingness to "talk" was almost non-existant in the first place.

[ February 04, 2003, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

Dschugaschwili:

The T-34 turret front is really neither a cyl. or a sphere... and I think it's slopes would actually perform better. So: Eh?

(Or do you think the cyl (or sphere) model in the game is only being applied to part of the turret front, and the rest is sloped?)

I never claimed that the front turret was a perfect cylinder, but from looking at the photos/drawings on page 3 I don't think that it would perform much better than a cylinder, and certainly not better than a sphere. Probably somewhere in between.

The calculations I did were done mostly to invalidate JasonC's first proposed impact angle distribution model.

Dschugaschwili

[Tarquelne]

I never claimed that the front turret was a perfect cylinder, but from looking at the photos/drawings on page 3 I don't think that it would perform much better than a cylinder, and certainly not better than a sphere. Probably somewhere in between.

IIRC "somewhere in between" would fit the game pretty well, (well, better than J's suggestion, yes), assuming we throw in a factor or two to weigh things more toward penetration. Special modeling of the mantlet, detailed armor/shell interactions and/or Andreas' "centre mass" might just do it.

[ February 04, 2003, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Guest konrad]

...you take it easy boys,

wait another 20 meters,and fire

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by lenakonrad:

...you take it easy boys,

wait another 20 meters,and fire

I am offended by your provokative use of "..."

[Guest konrad]

I'M SORRY...

[Hortlund]

Enter emoticons

Emoticons: (chorus)

-We are the tools of the unskilled writers. When someone fails to express himself through the written language he resorts to us. You should not hate us, because we only exist because of your shortcomings.

Enter Leutnant Hortlund and two German soldiers

Lt Hortlund:

-Obergrefreiter, take those disgusting "emoticons" out back and shoot them.

Emoticons:

-Oh noooo

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Soldier:

-Jawohl!

Exit soldiers and emoticons

*sound of gunfire*

Lt Hortlund

turns and faces the audience

-I know that some of you are scared. That some of you doubt your own ability to express yourselves through the written language. But we all feel like that from time to time.

I have myself full confidence that if all do their duty,if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our bulletin board, to ride out the storm of emoticons, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years

if necessary alone.

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of me and my merry men

That is the will of this bulletin board and indeed the entire internet.

The BFC Empire stand together as one linked in our cause and in our need, we will defend our bulletin board, each other like good comrades

to the utmost of our strength.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the emoticons and all the odious apparatus of their rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end.

We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans,

We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be,

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds,

We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets,

We shall fight in the hills;

We shall never surrender,

[Tarquelne]

We are the tools of the unskilled writers. When someone fails to express himself through the written language he resorts to us.

And used, of course, when actually writing it out puts one on the slippey slope to Bannedom.

(But in a nice way. Really.)

[Soddball]

The :mad: emoticon, however, should remain - blessed as it is by the incomprehensible frot monkey that is MasterGoodale.

[Jarmo]

Ah, fact based discussions are the best.

Want to piss off a grog?

Either kick his mum in the teeth, or worse, contest the vulnerability

of a T-34/76 model -41 turret front.

Here's the paradise of free emoticons:

:confused: :eek: :cool:

(dang, someone's limited the max amount to 8, racism says I )

[GRUMLIN]

Well Well Well - din't my lickle thread do well. I only started it as a rant against scoot and shoot losing me two T34s. Btw, I won that scenario 63-37, so it wasnt all bad. Timely use of 150mm arty on his infantry rush through a wood helped...

But on the same thread - is it gamey or realistic to use 37mm/20mm cannons to attack heavy armour going for the statistically likely 'gun damaged' result? surely this wasnt really and option on the eastern front?

Grum

[GRUMLIN]

Bump

[Andreas]

Originally posted by GRUMLIN:

But on the same thread - is it gamey or realistic to use 37mm/20mm cannons to attack heavy armour going for the statistically likely 'gun damaged' result? surely this wasnt really and option on the eastern front?

Grum

Battlefield.ru has a list of what caused tank losses of T34s, IIRC. 20mm accounted for some percent.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys, for what it's worth, two items:

1) Fionn's hunch is right that CM doesn't model armor curvature as well in the horizontal as it does in the vertical. Some T-34 models indeed have oddly-curved turret fronts and CM does an OK job simulating it, but it could be better. This is something we'll tackle as we go forward.

2) That said... I don't think any serious problem results. I just set up a test battle to (roughly) approximate the historical engagement that's been quoted in this thread. Not knowing the details, I picked the common variants of the tanks used at that time. Here's what I set up:

Environment

October 1941

Mid Day

Open, flat map

Engagement range: 800m (frontal)

Germans (regular crews)

8 x PzIIIG

Soviets (green crews)

8 x T-34 M41

Results (in one game turn)

The Germans were slaughtered. :eek:

All 8 German tanks knocked out.

1 Soviet T-34 immobilized from a track hit. 1 T-34 suffered one casualty from a turret front penetration (tank was not knocked out). 2 T-34s received one turret front penetration each but suffered no damage. No Soviet tanks were knocked out.

I only ran this test once, but if that result doesn't say, "The Pz IIIG has trouble with Soviet T-34s in longer-range frontal engagements" I don't know what does. It seems to match the historical record pretty well. If I'd been a German commander watching this turkey shoot, I'd write up a few white papers about it too. The problem for the Germans is that (from the front) it's only the T-34's turret that's even remotely vulnerable (the German 50mm shells bounce harmlessly off the front hull) while the entire front of the Pz IIIG is easily penetrated by the gun of the T-34. The Pz IIIGs don't score enough hits on the flatter portions of the T-34 turrets because they don't live long enough to do so.

Note: Using the H model panzer instead of the G would likely change this result considerably, because at 800m range, the extra hull armor of the H model improves protection to the point where the Soviet 76mm sometimes will not penetrate, giving a big advantage to the H. But the G model is more common in October 1941 so that's what I used for the test. One can see why the Germans were happy to add this armor to the H model. One can also see why the Soviets upgraded the turret front armor in the T-34 to 65mm, because in 1941 it was the only "weak" spot on the front of the tank - the hull was so well-sloped that it was essentially invulnerable to German weapons at the time.

Charles

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Jarmo:

Ah, fact based discussions are the best.

Want to piss off a grog?

Either kick his mum in the teeth, or worse, contest the vulnerability

of a T-34/76 model -41 turret front.

Here's the paradise of free emoticons:

:confused: :eek: :cool:

(dang, someone's limited the max amount to 8, racism says I )

Where is Peng? I should think that all this discussion about emoticons would have brought him out of the woodwork :eek: