Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

[rune]

Bigduke, then read this, originally posted by Rexford in another thread:

Here is a post I just added to the Matrix Games web site:

Vasiliy Fofanov posted results of a September 1943 firing test by Russians against the 82mm side armor on a Tiger tank:

76.2mm guns fail at 100m and 500m with 0 and 30 degree side angles

And at 100m and 500m to 600m:

U.S. 57mm anti-tank gun fails

U.S. 75mm fails

Russian 85mm fails

German 75mm Pak 40 fails

It is further noted in a post by karl smasher that 75mm Pak 40 routinely defeated 80mm to 85mm of Russian plate during virtual test bench trials at a simulated range of 600m:

"Saenko, Melnikov, Satel

Verified: Ustinov, Voronov

September 11, 1943"

PAK 40:

"In spite of the fact, that this captured artillery system reliably penetrates the armor plates of 80mm and 85mm thickness from the

testbench at the virtual distance of 600m, during the firing at "Tiger" tank by two pieces with 30 AP rounds each from a distance of 600-500m no full penetrations of side armor were obtained."

The above suggests to me that the armor was attacked at an angle. The 75mm Pak 40 APCBC would defeat 130mm on half the hits at 600m, so 85mm plates would only be a challenging target at an angle.

If Russians used face-hardened, high hardness or flawed armor, the impact angle of 75mm Pak 40 against 85mm plate would be about 44 degrees.

Now, if Tiger 82mm resisted like 92mm due to above average resistance (in tests against U.S. 90mm APCBC, Tiger 82mm resisted like 89mm effective), and it was more resistance than Russian test plate, hits at 44 degrees would routinely fail.

So Tiger defeat of all rounds might be due to combination of above-average resistance of 82mm plates and lowered resistance of Russian test plates that were used to set test angles for other than 76.2mm ammo.

Analysis of Allied firing tests against five captured early production Tigers indicates that Tiger 82mm plates averaged 3.3% more resistance than good quality American plate, with a maximum advantage of 9% over U.S. armor.

The following was posted by karl smasher on the Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin site, and in this case shatter appears to be the culprit:

" In reply to the the 85mm results, do you have the German report of firing trials using a captured T34/85 tested April-1944(wolfgang Fleischer book "WEAPONS TESTING") at Kummersdorf. The T34/85 failed against front hull and turret at 500m0degrees. Penetrations by 85mm were obtained against the side armor of the Tiger at 500m@0degrees by 85mm BR-365K. Note BR-365 (flat nose) failed at all ranges, rounds rounds broke up. It mentions BR-365K was more effective against the vertical tiger armor than the other flat 85mm nose rounds. Again these rounds tested were all captured from the inside the tank."

this was posted on the Matrix forum and the Yahoo! Tankers site. John Waters, and rexford both also say this:

"Lorrin in the first live fire tests against the Tiger E armor conducted by NIIBT at Kubinka April 25 - 30th 1943. The 76.2mm F-34 reportedly failed to penetrate the Tiger E side hull and turret armor "even 200 at meters".

During the second live fire tests conducted in September 1943 the 76.2mm F-22 USV, F-34, and Zis-3 reportedly failed to penetrate the Tiger E side hull and turret armor at 500 meters & 100 meters.

These are 2 live fire tests with basicly the same results. To bad we dont have access to the complete text of both reports etc. & it was a US 57mm IIRC.

Regards, John Waters"

Rune

[ April 25, 2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I know from experience that you can't flank and close, because the cost is prohibitive in dead T-34s even with driving good enough to get the perfect initial sight picture. Not that I've never done it, I have. Wal and Jack apparently misunderstand this point continually, thinking I must be not testing or doing something wrong since they see it as possible. Possible isn't enough to use a tactic. One chance in 25 of winning is not enough to try something whose downside is a lost tank.

What you fail to understand is that your way, some 1 vs 1 duel of uber guns is not necessarly the best way. It works, yes. And so does flanking. Just because you don't do it often or have not had great success with it, doesn't mean it does not work well.

I'm not suggesting it is easy to use 76mm for a flank shot. . . but it isn't that hard. This is not some elite tactic that only a few people can use well, but it does take more skill off the starting line . . .that much is true. But I tell you in my experience I have used t34/76s to kill tigers, succussfully, 100 times for every 1 time I used valentines or IS-152s.

It isn't that hard when timing is mastered, and I'll take it over some 50/50 1 vs 1 "fair fight" dice roll any day.

[DEY]

The following description is available from the Public Archives of Canada:

CANADIAN SCHOOL OF ARTILLERY (OVERSEAS)

BULLETIN NO.5 – APPENDIX "B-5"

GERMAN HEAVY TANK Pz.Kw VI.

The following is a report by the US Army Observer on the Tunisian Front.

The first of the new German Heavy tanks to be destroyed in this theatre was accounted for by 6-pdrs (57mm) of the [unnamed] Antitank Bn. (British).

The emplaced 6-pdrs opened fire at an initial range of 680 yards. The first round hit the upper side of the tank at very acute angles and merely nicked the armor. As the tank moved nearer it turned in such a manner that the third and fourth shots gouged out scallops of armor, the fifth shot went almost through and the next three rounds penetrated completely and stopped the tank. The first complete penetration was at a range of 600 yards, at an angle of impact of 30 degrees from normal, through homogeneous armor 82-mm (approximately 3-1/2 inches) thick. Ammunition used was the 57mm AP semi AP solid shot.

The ability to destroy a Tiger I from other than the front is described in a wartime report from the 7th Armored Division while in Belgium in December of 1944:

While northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern section had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been was when an M8 armored car from "E" Troop destroyed a Tiger tank. The armored car had been in a concealed position at right angles to run along a trail in front of the MLR. As the tank passed the armored car, the M8 slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on the armored car. It was a race between the Americans who were attempting to close so that their puny 37-mm would be effective in the Tiger’s "Achilles heel" (its thin rear armor), and the Germans who were desperately striving to bring their "88" to bear … Suddenly, the M8 had closed to 25 yards, and quickly pumped in 3 rounds… the lumbering Tiger stopped, shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which bellowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position.

Dennis Riva, a fellow tank buff, remembers the wartime story of an M5A1 light tank veteran, whose vehicle came across a Tiger II tank traveling in a ravine between two small hills. The light tank was quickly moved onto the rise paralledl and above the Tiger. The crew of the light tank then fired four to five rounds of 37mm ammo into the Tiger’s thin upper rear engine deck. As the smoke started to pour out of the Tiger’s engine the German crew took flight.

A Soviet view of the capture of their first Tiger tank is recounted in an extract from an article by the military historian Dr. Giuseppe Finizio:

In Romanovsky’s [A Soviet Lieutenant General] version published for the first time in Operatsiya Iskra (Spark), Lenizdat 1973 and reprinted in Leningrad Does Not Surrender by N. Kislitsyn and V. Zubakov, Progress, 1989): "I was informed that an unusual enemy tank was moving through the corridor. Our light guns fired at it, but even direct hits could not stop the heavy, obviously strongly armoured vehicle. The German tank was heading for Schusselburg and at the time our 18th Infantry Division was approaching the road. The tank came under heavy direct fire. The shells did not cause dameage, but the driver, evidently taking fright, turned off the road and tried to get away towards Sinyavino. As it turned, the tank got stuck in a peat bog.

And that’s how the Soviets captured their first Tiger tank… with just infantry!

[JasonC]

Wal - you can take it over "fair fights" (which means I have no idea what, I hit them while they aren't looking too), but you won't kill them just because they aren't looking. Because you need to penetrate 5 times, not once, and you won't in 15 seconds. 24 out of 25 times, in my tests and in my experience. Even with perfect driving to get there. A whole platoon at point blank from multiple angles, preferably with T, and the chances are good enough to take it. One tank, you are throwing it away, betting "22" in roulette.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

CMBB builds in variablity, and that variablity allows the Soviet 76.2mm gun to penetrate, at medium ranges and lower, the side of Tiger I, and the front of Stuermgeschuetz on rare occasions.

As I've pointed out before, part of the problem here is that the Stug had parts of the front covered by 50mm armour, CMBB does not model this.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The lower the range, the higher chance of a kill. Bagramian ordered the biggest tank charge in history at Kursk on grounds the Soviet 76.2mm gun could absolutely reliably penetrate the sides of Tiger I at ranges of 300mm or less.

Yes, with the result that the T34s was pretty much slaughtered.

[Jack Carr]

JasonC,

Thank you for making this post. I feel better about the whole discussion.

"Wal and Jack apparently misunderstand this point continually, thinking I must be not testing or doing something wrong since they see it as possible."

Not to worry on this point, I understand where you are coming from. 99 times out of a 100, I play QB's against the AI. When I play Russian, I almost always end up doing a mad rush once I have used up the available terrain. If there is a Tiger, the mad rush usually results in a battlefield filled with burning T-34's. I think from reading the beginning of your last post, you understand where I was coming from. Again, thanks.

BigDuke6 - "Some children are so spoiled, they throw fits if they don't get their favorite toys."

This definitely doesn't fit me as a player. As far as playing the Germans goes, my personal favorites are StugIV and PanzerIV/70. I do however like to play with Tigers. Here is a typical battle that I would set up using the QB generator:

1500 points - Allies +50%.

October 1944 - This almost ensures that the Russians will have T-34/85's or 76mm lend-lease Shermans.

Allied attack - Dawn - Clear - moderate foliage - small hills - village with no damage.

Both sides are pure armor.

I let the AI pick the Russian forces but as I said before, because of the date, it almost always ends up with a couple of T-34/85's or lend-lease Shermans with 76mm's. I prefer to have the Russian experience set to high so they have some veterans or better.

For the Germans, I pick one or two Tiger I's, usually veteran or crack.

On a rare occassion, I mop up, but usually my Tiger's end up getting knocked out after three or four turns.

Of course, this isn't a test and doesn't prove anything, except maybe that I overestimate the Tiger's ability when facing 15 or more enemy tanks. Great fun though!

You guys seem to have a wealth of data at your fingertips. Historically, what kind of odds did a Tiger crew face?

[JasonC]

rune - I think we've all seen that report. But I don't buy the explanation of the PAK 40 report. The PAK 40 report is so clearly just wrong, that to me it casts suspicion on the whole document, and raises the question, what its point was in internal Russian development and testing.

First I note in passing the wiggle room they give themselves. They say no full side penetrations occurred in 30 rounds fired, but they don't say whether all of them hit, or where on the tank they hit, or whether they were from the side, etc. One is still meant to conclude, the PAK 40 fails to penetrate 82mm at 600m - which is patently absurd, just clearly false, an outright lie.

Besides the wiggle room explanation (the PAK 40 shots just weren't fired from the side or didn't hit or hit the running gear etc), there is another possible one, a reason they might have made it up, deliberately.

They may have been petitioning for 85mm guns to be fielded ASAP, and their way of going about it was to demolish the argument that 76mm sufficed for anything. Clearly they did need a better gun. If they had honestly said, ours won't do it while theirs will, then the subsequent embarassing question would arise, why to their standard 3 inch guns outperform our standard 3 inch guns by a factor of 50% or more? And in Russia at that time, that question meant a shooting offense.

So they just lied. They did not want to muddy the case with a confession that yes, a 76mm caliber was adequate as long as it was a German gun with German ammo - and get somebody punished, or send higher ups on a "let's improve our 76mm so it is as good as the German one" goose chase. They knew the answer they wanted - give us an 85mm immediately. So they made up the stuff about the PAK 40, just falsified the test.

There is no way it can be literally true, so one is just looking for the reasons for the falsehood, conscious or not. To me, the above is as plausible an explanation as any other. But anyone citing these tests as an accurate representation, needs to lobby for the German 75L48 to fail against the T-34 glacis at any range. Because there is no question the front hull of a T-34 is better protection than the side of a Tiger.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JasonC:

But it isn't, it is pen chance combined with very low BAE even for large caliber rounds.

What are you talking about now? What calibre are you refering to? What references do you have to say that the BHE is too low? Is it your opinion that the BHE too low for russian guns only, or all guns in general?

Originally posted by JasonC:

3 full pens and 13 partials in my 500m tests resulted in all of 3 dead Tigers, and the ratio of pens to kills was even lower with the T ammo (though of course the pens were much higher).

Why would you say "the ratio of pens to kills was even lower with the T ammo"? Isn't that pretty obvious, while you make it sound like something remarkable?

[JasonC]

No it is not obvious, when they always get full pens.

BAE low is a problem for large caliber guns. We know from dead tanks that million joule plus weapons, 75mm calibers and above, typically killed tanks with 1-2 penetrations. Because most wrecks don't have ten to twenty holes in them.

With things like a 2 pdr, a small round of solid shot with low total energy, low BAE is realistic. But only 1/6 full pens becoming kills, with 76mm rounds, is wrong. We know it is wrong because we can see what it predicts about wrecks.

A wreck may be hit multiple times after it is KOed, in hail fire instances, making sure, a tank engaged by a much larger unit. But you won't find lots of wrecks with only a few holes in them, unless a few penetrations can regularly result in a kill.

If you ask for the distribution of number of trials needed to get one success with a 1/6 chance in each, you get a humped shape with a tail off to the right, for high numbers of failures. There is no way you are going to find the majority of wrecks have 1-2 holes in them, if they came from that distribution. Statistically impossible.

If the kill chance were 50% per penetration, you'd see a lot of 1s, some 2s, and a diminishing number with 3-5, very few beyond that. Plus some noise from overkill tending to pull that whole distribution to the right. That could fit the data - half, two third, three quarters - any of those numbers would be plausible.

But if it were 1 out of 6, then *most* wrecks should have 4, 6, 10 holes in them. Plus some overkill skew beyond even that. And there is simply no sign of this. There are tanks that have been hit that often, but not penetrated that often. And the average is more like 2-3.

[JasonC]

In case nobody bothered to look at the data I reported, I saw T ammo getting full penetrations at 200m, with the following BAE -

5/32 KO

6/32 limited damage (GD, -1 crew, etc)

21/32 no significant damage

Did anything 1/3, killed 1/6.

That is T ammo at 200m getting full penetrations.

With APHE at 500m, the sample size is much smaller, particularly for full pens. Not big enough to be all that significant - the ratios look different if you allow +/- one success e.g. In 80 engagements, by the time the T-34s died, I accumulated 3 full and 12 partial pens. The BAE was -

full - 1/3 KO, 2/3 NSD

partial - 2/12 KO (same tank), 10/12 NSD.

killed - 1/5.

In modeling terms, it looks like only 1/3 full pens is doing anything. And half the T pens that do something, don't do killing damage. With partials, effect rate might be halved again, on top of that.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JasonC:

BAE low is a problem for large caliber guns. We know from dead tanks that million joule plus weapons, 75mm calibers and above, typically killed tanks with 1-2 penetrations. Because most wrecks don't have ten to twenty holes in them.

Do you have ANY data about this apart from your opinion?

[DEY]

The armor of the Tiger I was not well sloped, but it was thick. Here is where many fail to understand that, in terms of World War II tank warfare, thickness is a quality in itself, since armor resistance is mainly determined by the ratio between armor thickness and projectile diameter (T/d). The T/d relationship regarding armor penetration demonstrates that the more the thickness of the armor plate overmatches the diameter of any incoming armor piercing round, the harder it is for the projectile to achieve a penetration. On the other side, the greater the diameter of the incoming projectile relatively to the thickness of the armor plate which it strikes, the greater the probability of penetration. This explains why the side armor of the Tiger I, being 80 mm thick, was so difficult to be penetrated at combat ranges by most Allied anti-tank and tank guns, whose calibers were overmatched by the thickness of the Tiger I armor. The quality of the armor was another major asset of the Tiger I, and it can't be emphasized enough that the Tiger I was a very special kind of Panzer, since it had the best quality of everything, compared to any other German tank. The rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded interlocking-plate construction armor had a Brinell hardness index of 255-260 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for WW II standards), and rigorous quality control procedures ensured that it stayed that way. The Tiger I's armor was much superior to that of, for example the Panther, which armor had a much higher Brinell index, and consequently, was very brittle. The Tiger, as a side effect from the usage of this special armor, also was a very expensive and resource consuming tank.

Now the question is, has BFC modeled any special consideration in the regard of the unique armor of the Tiger 1 in the game.

Another fact that helped the Tigers a lot was the "shatter gap" effect which affectted allied ammunition, a most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. It should be noted that the problems with the 76 mm and 3" guns did not necessarily involve the weapons themselves: the noses of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail.

Penetrations would occur below this velocity range, since the shell would not shatter, and strikes above this range would propel the shell through the armor whether it shattered or not. When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect.

As a general rule, BHN (Brinell Hardness Index) effects, shot shatter, and obliquity effects are related to the ratio between shot diameter and plate thickness. The relationship is complex, but a larger projectile hitting relatively thinner plate will usually have the advantage. There is an optimum BHN level for every shot vs plate confrontation, usually in the 260-300 BHN range for World War Two situations. Below that, the armor is too soft and resists poorly, above that, the armor is too hard and therefore too brittle.

The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the armor protection of the Tiger: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from 500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.).

Info from this site,

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

there are also some Penetration Table's from a JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6 source.

[JasonC]

Panzer 76 - of course, it is all well known stuff, cited numerous times on this board. Nothing esoteric about it, common property to everyone involved in these debates, used by BTS, etc. There are Brit surveys of wrecks in Normandy (which I believe John Salt has cited), Russian surveys of wrecks at Kursk (at the Russian battlefield, when it is up), some of them down to specificially numbered vehicles and the exact plate penetrated by what weapon. The tanks that took 10 penetrations to kill predicted by 1/6 kill chances for full pens, do not exist.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Panzer 76 - of course, it is all well known stuff, cited numerous times on this board. Nothing esoteric about it, common property to everyone involved in these debates, used by BTS, etc.

Thats great, care to point me to some of these numerous references?

[Panzer76]

Just did a small test about the BAE.

1 Toon of 75mm Shermans shooting at Tiger flank from 500m.

2 out of 5 times the tiger was KOed bu the first round that hit (full pen)

2 times it needed 1 full pen and 1 part.

1 time it was KOed because of immobilzation and the crew bailed.

Seems pretty lethal to me.

[Panzer76]

In Steven Zaloga's Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of WWII, p. 225 there is a diagram over Russian guns penetration ability.

For the 76,2mm F-34 it is listed (at 0 degrees and vs steel armour) to be:

500m - 92mm

1000m - 60mm

For the 85mm Zis-F-53

500m - 138mm

1000m - 100mm

See next post for more data.

[ April 25, 2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[Panzer76]

More data from Ian Allan Russian Tanks of WWII.

The BR-350A round for the F-34 gun, lead the Germans to up armour their PzIV to 80mm (and the Stugs I would believe). As a counter point for this, the Russians introduced the BR-350P APDS round and the given penetration data corresponds to the one given in Zalogas book, mentioned above.

Further it says to be able to KO the Tiger the T34 had to shoot from point blank range at the front, or get a side/rear shot (with the new round).

The standard loadout for the T34 was as following (the 42 model):

BR-350A - 19

HE - 53

Cannister (SH-350) - 5

Which would indicate that atleast for the T34 42 model, the BR-350P was rare. Also, as the Germans introduced the 80mm armour to defeat the BR-350A I would imagine it would have difficulties penetrating it (and thus, the Tigers side).

Now, Im sure somewhere we have a table of the availability of the 350P armour, and the penetration ability of the 350A round.

EDIT:

And yes, found I did.

BR-350A PENETRATION

Range......Homogeneous.......Face-Hardened

50m...........80mm.............83mm

100m..........77mm.............82mm

500m..........68mm.............75mm

1000m.........59mm.............66mm

1500m.........53mm.............59mm

Linky

Battlefield states that standard loadout for the T43 m42 (100 round capacity) was as follows:

AP (BR350A/B) - 21

Tungsten (BR350P) - 4 (Note, introduced in Oct 43)

HE - 75

Linky

Penetration figures from Battlefield:

BR-350A

100m - IP=89mm CP=80mm

500m - IP=78mm CP=70mm

BR-350B

100m - IP=94mm CP=86mm

500m - IP=84mm CP=75mm

BR-350P

100m - CP=102mm

500m - CP=92mm

Linky

Note :

"The Initial Penetration (IP) means the 20% probability of armor penetration. The Certified Penetration (CP) means the 80% probability of armor penetration"

"Also, it is important to understand that realistic penetration values in 1941-1943 was reduced significantly due to low quality ammo."

It would seem clear that the Br-350A should not be able to penetrate the Tigers side unless from being point blank range since teh production of BR-350A stopped in 43.

The 350B would be able to get some part pens on side from 500m after 43, but before had to close to 100m or so even have chance for full pen, more likely part pen.

From these figures I can not see much fault in CMBBs simulation of T34s vs Tigers up to '43.

[ April 25, 2005, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[JasonC]

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=003018

Cites the Brit ORS survey in Normandy - the first I found in the forum. At the Russian battlefield, look under destroyed AFVs iirc, and they have particular pages on KOed Elephants and Panthers at Kursk.

If you combined the two tables above, pens per brew up at a little over 3 for the German heavies, but there are dead tanks that didn't brew up as well. The average pens per dead tank from the two tables are 2.6 for the Tiger and 2.3 for the Panther. The RB data on dead Panthers at Kursk is similar - you get plenty of cases with one 76mm side pen and KO, and a few with 2 45mm and 1 76mm pen, and the like. You don't get 6-7 76mm penetrations.

[JasonC]

Straw men - the US 75mm is not the Russian 76mm, the sample size is tiny compared to my 120 engagements, the 1942 ammo load obviously does not reflect rounds not fielded until 1943 (350B) or 1944 (350P). Also, you haven't addressed BAE rather than pens, which are what cause the observed 25 to 1 exchange ratios after achieving the doctrinal 500m from the side set up in the era when they had 350B. Frankly, such poor apologetics don't merit further response.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Straw men - the US 75mm is not the Russian 76mm, the sample size is tiny compared to my 120 engagements, the 1942 ammo load obviously does not reflect rounds not fielded until 1943 (350B) or 1944 (350P). Also, you haven't addressed BAE rather than pens, which are what cause the observed 25 to 1 exchange ratios after achieving the doctrinal 500m from the side set up in the era when they had 350B. Frankly, such poor apologetics don't merit further response.

LOL.

You said that poor BAE was valid for all large calibre guns, 75mm and up, and no suddenly it's only the 76.2mm? And just to top it off, you call my test using US 75mm guns to test the BHE a strawman, and in the very next post put forward a report from Normandy as proof for lacking BHE (which it's not, see next post)! I somehow doubt they used the F-34 gun in Normandy old chap! Ah, the irony!

Yes, small sample indeed, as I was too lazy too do anymore.

As for the 350B round, after/late 43, I commented on that if you had paid attention, and said that it would perhaps get some part pens from 500m on the Tigers 80mm armour.

As for the ammo, the 350A production stopped in 43, when, we do not know, perhaps Jan, perhaps Dec, any data on this would be welcomed. Also, even though they stopped producing it, did not mean that the stockpiles thay had of the ammo suddenly vanished. It would have been in use for quite some time afterwards.

If anyone have data on the production numbers and dates of the different rounds, please say so.

Also, Battlefield says tha ammo was poor in 41-43 which is a pretty vague date. Until 43? During 43? To the end of 43?

[ April 25, 2005, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by JasonC:

If you combined the two tables above, pens per brew up at a little over 3 for the German heavies, but there are dead tanks that didn't brew up as well. The average pens per dead tank from the two tables are 2.6 for the Tiger and 2.3 for the Panther. The RB data on dead Panthers at Kursk is similar - you get plenty of cases with one 76mm side pen and KO, and a few with 2 45mm and 1 76mm pen, and the like. You don't get 6-7 76mm penetrations.

Your logic is flawed.

You argue that in order to KO a tank, you should not have to get as many penetrations, partials, or full, as is required now.

To give this credence, you show us some data which shows how many hits and penetrations that were recorded for brewed up tanks in Normandy.

All this tells you is on average how many pens are needed to brew up the tank (never mind that weapon calibre is not recorded, nor hit location) and the average tendency for them to brew up before the tank crew firing on the tank deem it KOed and stop firing on it.

Do you think, that for the tanker on the field, seeing the enemy tank brew up, might indicate taht the tank is KOed and teh crew won't fire more shells at it?

Which means, that the number you see here, and cite, is the miniumum number of penetrations a tank would recieve before being deemed KOed without brewing up.

[Xipe66]

Jason,

Very interesting numbers, but when you got to the Crusaders vs. the Pz. III's in CMAK that got some questions raised for me: are you saying there's some general übergerman bias in all of the CM games, or are you saying that penetrating hits don't always kill?

If the latter, why not complete your tests with with german vehicles hitting allied ones, cause as it stands now what you present could be dismissed as FUD from a known über-german-modelling-has-to-go proponent.

[rune]

Jason,

You said they lied to get the 85mm gun, I want to see any proof of this. I will go with test fires unless you have any proof that the numbers were fudged.

Rune

[Panzer76]

Since JasonC has made it clear that this is about BHE

Originally posted by JasonC:

The new information is about *behind armor effect*, not penetrations. Which is not an issue for Russian guns only. It is of great tactical importance when an engagement depends on an initial side aspect shot.

And it indeed applies to all large calibre weapons in CMBB and CMAK, and somehow hints about having to need 20 penetrations in CM to get a KO :

Originally posted by JasonC:

BAE low is a problem for large caliber guns. We know from dead tanks that million joule plus weapons, 75mm calibers and above, typically killed tanks with 1-2 penetrations. Because most wrecks don't have ten to twenty holes in them.

I did a larger test, 75mm vs Tiger side, not that has anything to do with this, since all 75mm + weapons has too low BHE.

To make it simple, I included partial penetrations as penetrations, even though they do not have teh same BHE. IF I only counted full penetrations, the numbers below would be much lower (e.i, you would need less penetrations). Note that no Tiger survived 3 full penetrations.

Number of Penetrations (full and part) required to kill a Tiger:

1 Penetration - 16 kills

2 Penetrations - 11 kills

3 Penetrations - 7 kills

4 Penetrations - 2 kills

5 Penetrations - 1 kill

43 % of all the kills only needed one full or partial penetration.

73% of all kills were made by 2 or less partial or full penetrations.

From my POV, the BHE seems pretty solid...

[Bigduke6]

Rune,

My arguements are based on Russian-language Soviet army sources, and memoirs of Red Army armor commanders. That's primary sources.

You want to read about the 76.2mm cannon:

http://www.battlefield.ru/armaments/f34_r.html

http://www.battlefield.ru/armaments/zis5_r.html

http://www.battlefield.ru/armaments/s54_r.html

As another example go here for the 85mm cannon:

http://www.battlefield.ru/armaments/d5_r.html

Go here to learn (in a short form) why straight numerical comparisons of German and Soviet armor-piercing tables is apples and oranges:

http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_5_r.html

Go here to learn (in long form, but it's in English) the formulae used by Red Army engineers to calculate penetration:

http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/defin_1_r.html

I could go on, there is a ton of information out there on the web, never mind in libraries and archives. It's not like World War Two is a forbidden subject in the former Soviet Union.

If you can't read Russian, and have no access to Russian-language primary sources, you are depending on secondary sources.

Ask yourself, how reliable can your understanding of Red Army weapons be? How trustworthy would you think my statements about German weapons would be, if I only cited Russian-language literature?

It seems to me that what you and some other people on this thread are doing is willfully ignoring what the Soviets said about their own weapons.

The historical record shows the Soviets thought their AP weapons were somewhat better than CMBB makes them out to be. They should be grateful they were able to fight Germans with real weapons, and not CMBB ones.