Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

[Zwollo2003]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

Panzer,

you did your test with US 75mm firing APCBCHE, a full-bore round with large HE burster. The behind armour effect of it in real life would be much, much better than the APCR (BR-365 P or "Tungsten" in CMBB parlance is an APCR).

APCR works by using a hard-core, subcaliber penetrator sheathed in light metal body.If the APCBCHE penetrates, it makes a big hole, pushes a big slug of hot metal inside the tank and then explodes. You rarely need more than one penetration to KO a tank that way.

On the other hand if the APCR penetrates you have a small tungsten core bouncing around the tank which may or may not be enough to knock the tank out. I don't exactly remember the dimensions of the penetrator but it could be 1/3 or 1/2 of the caliber. So for 76mm gun the penetrator would be similar to a 25mm or 37mm full caliber round.

In real life the small behind armour effect of APCR was widely noted and, in addition to their cost, prevented them from becoming the main armour-piercing ammunition of the war.

This difference in BAE is modeled in CMBB. So it seems the problem is not poor BAE effect of Soviet projectiles, but the Soviet ability (or lack thereof) to penetrate Tiger with rounds other than T. Which is the previous subject of this discussion, before the BAE issue.

Cheers,

Zwolo.

[rune]

So your opinion is based on the Russian battlefield web site. Did you know they were invovled in the making of the game? Did you also notice they have listed in their tables that the performance was less in the 1941-1943 time frame due to problems with the ammunition? Did you also know a lot of their figures were based on formula and NOT on firing tests?

Here is exactly what Valera says:

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

YOUR primary source states this.

Also interesting to note that the SU76 crews were taught NOT to fire at a Tiger unless under 300 meters, and to aim for the tracks.

To me the subject is far from settled. I'll still stick with live test firings untill someone comes up with something better.

Rune

[Bigduke6]

Rune,

I think it is not the subject that is closed but, with respect, your mind.

I linked you to the Russian battlefield site not because it is the main source of my opinion, but because even if you can't read Russian (and again, I apologize if you can) there are penetration tables with numbers in them on that site your computer should be able to read. My hope was that you would see there really are data out there you are not considering, and that I am not just inventing evidence.

Lots of people on this forum know the Russian battlefield site, so I was hoping that would give my point of view more credibility. My point is, the Russian-language side of that site is factors larger than the English-language side, and far more detailed.

Since Russian Battlefield doesn't impress you, here is another Russian-language site on WW2 armor penetration:

http://krieg.wallst.ru/frames-p/saurung.html

Note that at the top it says: "Russian penetration numbers are understated by 10 - 15 per cent".

Now to your questions.

Yes I am aware Soviet AP ammo had reliability problems in the 41-42 period. I also know the munition improved over time, and that CMBB does not account for that improval. Indeed, in general over time in CMBB the 76.2mm round gets worse.

Look it up. In CMBB, the 1941 Soviet 76.2mm AP round actually gets worse in 1942. Its penetration ability is best in 1941. It improves slightly in 1943, but never reaches the capability of the 1941 round. The round never improves after 1943 - in CMBB I mean.

Explain that to me, if you can. How is it that the main Soviet AP round of the war is, according to CMBB, most effective at the start of the war? Why does it get worse during 1942, improves slightly in 1943, and after not improve a bit?

The last is especially mystifying to me - Soviet arms manufacturing got pretty efficient during the latter stages of the war, and the Soviets introduced an improved 76.2mm AP round in 1944.

Yes I am aware Soviets used a formula to determine a portion of their penetration estimates. I sent the link for it to you, remember?

Now I would like to ask you some questions. Are you aware (1) the Soviets thought their cast armor was at least as good as German rolled plate, and CMBB doesn't seem to account for that and (2) There is evidence Soviet plate used in actual testing was if anything a bit harder than German plate? If you knew that, where did you learn it?

Yes I am aware Valera worked on CMBB. I know Valera, somewhat. If you think I am just making all this up, then write Valera and ask him.

Further, I know and Valera knows that the Russian battlefield site points out in several places in big letters: Don't compare Russian to German penetration tables, they are apples and oranges. Russian numbers are understated in comparison to German numbers.

I don't think you are aware of this, or if you are I think you are ignoring this important qualification. I say this because the second or third link I posted has that very warning in bold type at the top of the page.

Are you aware the Soviet definition of penetration was more rigorous than the German definition? This obviously has a direct bearing on where the cut-off is between a round getting through the armor and not? CMBB clearly does not take this into account either.

Finally, the memoirs of all the leading Soviet armored commanders (that I have read anyway) describe the 76.2mm gun and the T-34 tank as effective against pretty much everything the Germans could throw at it, except the TigerI. Then T-34/76 had to get to close range and the flank.

Here is the site:

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/index.html

Here is an abbreviated list of Soviet armor commanders familiar with the T-34/76, i.e., they had the vehicles in their direct command: Bagramian, Babadzhian, Baklanov, Batov, Vorozheykin, Dragunsky, Zaitsev, Ivanovsky, Katiukov (my personal favorite) Leliushenko, Malinovsky, Moskalenko, Popel.

There's plenty more. I have read about half of these guys. How many of these memoirs have you read?

I defy you to find even one Soviet commander saying TigerI was absolutely impenetrable to T-34/76, or that Stuermgeschuetz was frontally impenetrable to T-34/76.

I further defy you to come up with a combat account of a Stuermgeschuetz demonstating frontal invulnerability to the Soviet 76.2mm AP round, in any language.

Pointing out Soviet 76.2 assault gun crews were trained to fire at Tiger sprockets at close range is immaterial to a discussion about how well or poorly CMBB depicts Russian AP weapons. Of course they aimed at the sprockets. That's a higher-payoff shot than the frontal armor, for heaven's sake. Of course they trained for close-range shots. That's the Soviet way of doing business.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Zwollo2003:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

Panzer,

you did your test with US 75mm firing APCBCHE, a full-bore round with large HE burster. The behind armour effect of it in real life would be much, much better than the APCR (BR-365 P or "Tungsten" in CMBB parlance is an APCR).

</font>

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Since Russian Battlefield doesn't impress you, here is another Russian-language site on WW2 armor penetration:

http://krieg.wallst.ru/frames-p/saurung.html

I can't seem to find the 350A/B/P round here.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

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

These are the numbers for the BR-350A/B/P that I already have posted.

[Panzer76]

And since Tungsten rounds were mentioned, I did a test with MarderIIIr (using the 76.2 gun) with T rounds vs Vanilla Shermans. Hits required to KO a tank (note, all pens here were full penetrations):

1 Penetration: 10 kills

2 Penetrations: 12 kills

3 Penetrations: 2 kills

With the lamented poor BAE of teh T round, 92% of the tanks were KOed by 1 or 2 penetrations. No tank survived more than 3 penetrations.

This is infact higher mortality rate than by using "standard" AP, but there I counted partial penetrations as penetrations.

[ April 26, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[Bigduke6]

Panzer 76,

My point throughout is that the numbers of those tables are low if you just stick them into the CMBB engine. If you don't take into account how Soviets figured armor penetration predictability, and how it was different from western armies, the engine is going to produce wierd results - and always in favour of the Germans.

The thing driving the modeling should not be numbers on a table, but battlefield results. The game should replicate the battlefield results.

The best source of how good or bad Russian weapons were is the Russians themselves. Not Germans testing Russian weapons, not Americans testing German versions of the Russian weapons. By that I don't mean simply finding penetration tables and transposing them. I mean understanding how the weapon performed, based on how the people using the weapon saw it it perform. That's what the engine should replicate.

So once again, where are the historical accounts of Soviet 76.2mm AP outright unable to penetrate the side of TigerI? Where are the historical accounts of Soviet 76.2mm AP outright unable to penetrate the front of Stuermgeschuetz?

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Panzer 76,

My point throughout is that the numbers of those tables are low if you just stick them into the CMBB engine. If you don't take into account how Soviets figured armor penetration predictability, and how it was different from western armies, the engine is going to produce wierd results - and always in favour of the Germans.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the main difference in how the russians calculated the penetration ability of their guns compared to, say the Germans, the % chance for a penetration?

AFAIK the germans used a 50 % probability and the Russians a 80% probability. So there would be a difference, but perhaps not that a great difference. Like the difference you see between the 20% and 80% penetrations already listed, but less.

Also, BTS has not "stuck" any table numbers into CM, the penetrations are calculated in game depending on physics.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The thing driving the modeling should not be numbers on a table, but battlefield results. The game should replicate the battlefield results.

So once again, where are the historical accounts of Soviet 76.2mm AP outright unable to penetrate the side of TigerI? Where are the historical accounts of Soviet 76.2mm AP outright unable to penetrate the front of Stuermgeschuetz?

While this is well and good, there are so many more variable on the battlefield in real life than in the game. For instance, tankers was trained to aim for particular weak spots on the different tanks. Things like teh turret ring, hatches etc. This is represented in CM as weak hull penetrations. However, there is only 1% chance in the game for this to happen, while a trained crew, on the battlefield, could aim for these weak spots with much more accuracy.

Also, there were special heat tempered BR350A and 350B ammo that were distributed in small quantities that were able to penetrate more armour than the regualr rounds. Etc etc.

I suspect that thing like this is responsible for most of the "unhistorical" results you see vs the Tiger than any general mis-simulation of the 76.2 gun itself.

It would be nice if CMBB could simulate these other battlefield factors better, but alas, with the current engine atleast, it seems not.

As for the StugIII, I have already mentioned this 2 times before in this very thread. CM simulates the Stug 80mm front very poorly as part of it was 50mm. Instead it gets 80mm at 10 degrees, this makes it very difficult for any 76.2mm to penetrate the front, and ahistorical so. This is very unfortunate as this is one of the main match ups in CMBB, and I've complained about this myself. But, this is not the same issue as with the Tigers IMO.

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The best source of how good or bad Russian weapons were is the Russians themselves. Not Germans testing Russian weapons, not Americans testing German versions of the Russian weapons. By that I don't mean simply finding penetration tables and transposing them. I mean understanding how the weapon performed, based on how the people using the weapon saw it it perform. That's what the engine should replicate.

Well, the allies has also tested the guns and armour of the russian tanks, and in some cases they were different than the russian numbers.

While this can have many explinations, westerens has for a long time been suspicious of russian data, and sometimes rightly so. As Rune mentioned, Battlefield has been consulted on these issues as well.

As I tried to explain, battlefield results has more variables than exists in the CM engine. The "failure" of reprodusing "historical" results may lay elsewhere than in the penetration abilities of certain guns.

However, if you feel otherwise, as it seems you do, you need to back this up with data. This has been tried before, repetedly by JasonC, but he never made much progress on the 76.2 mm gun. However, he made some good points about the 85mm performance, and rexford offered to help him make a case, but his lack of manners turned rexford away.

Just genereally pointing to "battlefield results" is worthless when you do not know for certain what happend on that battlefield.

[ April 26, 2005, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[rune]

Bigduke,

You wrongly assume a lot. Do I know Valera? yep, who do you think got him into the beta testing? As for your assumption on the armour, Valera will also admit there is NO documentation on the hardness. Saying it was better then German plate has no more weight then saying it doesn't.

Another false assumption, CMBB does NOT use tables. Nope, never has. A formula is used for penetration figuring all sorts of factors, type of armour, type of shell, velocity, etc etc.

They thought their cast armour was as good as? Compared to what, a panzer II or III? The Americans said their Shermans could stand up to anything the Germans threw at it. This is useless information, not based on anything.

As for being closed minded, not at all. For the StuG 80mm, there is a difference of opinion by those much more knowledgable then me. Either it does more then 80mm of protection, or it doesn't. Unless someone has a StuG we can fire at, we may never know. As for the round, I will compare the t34 across years with the same model tank. 1941 could be the model 40 which had a different gun, so will look at it when I get a chance. however, before I change my mind, I want more then the Russians lied on a firing test, or ignore data from other sources that disagree with the Russians. I do NOT believe the British or Americans would lie about a penetration value. Bottom line, show me concrete proof, and I will change my mind, it the meantime, I will not say the model is wrong by 15% without some sort of proof, especially when people like John Waters and Lorrin, both of which are much more knowledgable then I, state otherwise. Show me proof and not conjecture, and I will back you (like that really matters )

Rune

[ April 26, 2005, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

[rune]

I do have a question for someone more knowledgable.

According to this site:

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/soviet_guns5.html

The Zis-3 gun, firing the exact smae shell as the F34 gun, but with a longer barrel and HIGHER velocity then the tank gun, has less penetration at 100 meters? I don't understnad that at all. Also the drop off of penetration value does not make sense to me either. Why the 19mm drop off in the first 400 meters, and only 9 in the next 500? Am serious, this does NOT make sense to me.

Rune

[Panzer76]

Thanks for the link Rune. The site is interesting and provides some more data on the subject.

"the BR-350A was issued from before 1941 and ceased production in 1943;

the BR-350B, pictured below, started production in 1942 and eventually replaced the BR-350A; and

the BR-354B projectile replaced the BR-350B projectile in 1944."

Apparently, russians had problems with ammo quality until 1944.

"In addition, Soviet quality control was generally poor and ammunition was substandard up until about 1944, which would degrade penetration in unpredictable ways. I would expect that this means that some ammunition would perform better than predicted and some worse, or even considerably worse."

It further says that there are no reliable source for penetration data for the BR-350B and the data that exist show that it would have lower penetration and less HE filler than the BR-350A.

BUT:

"It is likely that the reason for lack of BR-350B projectile data is that no actual tests were carried out and that the limited data presented is theoretical, leading to estimates of penetration performance which are unrealistically low."

And that overall the performance of the BR-350B was better than the BR-350A.

Also note that

"Most Soviet data is based on mathematical prediction rather than on actual tests. While the predicted data is reasonably good for Soviet AP projectiles it can be quite inaccurate for APBC projectiles, particularly as these are more affected by obliquity and hardness so it is more difficult to derive a suitable mathematical predictive model."

Which may go to some lenght to explain the confusion about real life performance and simulated performance.

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/soviet.html#Gun_Penetration_Data

[Panzer76]

Can someone that can read russian translate this:

УБР-354М

Is this the same round as the BR-354B?

Russian battlefield states that the F-34 gun used the following types of AP ammo:

UBR-354A

UBR-354B

UBR-354SP

But then gives the pentration values for the T-34 gun (F-34) with the following ammo:

BR-350A

BR-350B

BR-350P

Is there a difference between these rounds, or are they the same?

[ April 26, 2005, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[Zwollo2003]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Can someone that can read russian translate this:

УБР-354М

Is this teh same round as the BR-354B?

No, what you wrote means "UBR-354M". This is a designation of a projectile + shell combination (BR-xxx were projectile designations, VBR-xxx propellant designations). For example, BR-350B would be part of UBR 350B. I am not familiar with BR-354M or BR -354B though, maybe someone else knows to what ammunition those designations refer. Or perhaps there is a typo and your source meant UBR-354N, not M (UBR-354N was a 76mm BR-354N - a tungsten projectile - together with the appropriate shell)?

Zwolo

[Bigduke6]

Panzer76,

Glad to oblige. That is "UBR-354M".

The UBR stands for "Unitarniy broniboiniy" meaning "single piece armour piercing". I am not positive what the M stands for but usually M means "modernizirnovanniy", meaning modernized.

The suffixes A and B are model numbers, i.e., the A version came out before the B version. SP means "Sploshnoi", or solid, like an ATR rifle slug. I didn't know the Soviets made a 76.2mm solid round.

So the answer to your question is "No, that certainly is a different round - probably. How different, probably, would be the difference between the B version of the 1944 round, and the modernized version of the 1944 round. Don't forget the Soviets modernized after the war. Also don't forget more than one factory produced shells.

But bottom line, not the same. To an extent we don't know.

Clearly the round you are talking about came out in 1944 at least, and maybe even later. It is the follow-on to the BR-350 series.

I too haven't been able to find any detailed info on how well this 1944 shell series performed. But it is logical that it would perform better than the earlier versions.

[Bigduke6]

Rune,

What on earth would you consider acceptable evidence?

I point out the practical absence of historical battlefield accounts verifying the 76.2 round was uselss against the side of TigerI. As nearly as I can tell you see that as irrelevant.

I show you and any one else who cares to look the very page of Russian Battlefield site that says "Russian guns are better than these numbers, don't compare them to German based on these numbers." You tell me you know Valera better than I do.

I say "CMBB makes the 76.2mm round worse in 1942 than in 1941". You say you will check.

I say "CMBB doesn't improve the performance of the 76.2mm round after 1943, the Soviets came out with an improved round in 1944. From what I can tell, you just ignore me.

I say "A Stug frontally invulnerable to the ZiS-3 is silly." You say "Well, whatever happened happened in battles, we'll never know."

I say "Read the Soviet armored commanders, get some perspective, listen to the other side. These are first-hand accounts from the field commanders. They thought 76.2 could deal with Tiger sides."

You ignore my suggestion. Then you tell to come up with some "real proof" if I want to convince you.

Be reasonable. The Soviets clearly believed the 76.2 gun was capable of things it cannot really manage in CMBB. You seem like a smart guy, do you really think the Soviets would get something like that wrong, after the war was over? I mean, they are happy as clams in post-war accounts to point out German superiority in training and tank gunnery.

Why do Soviet post-war accounts - pretty much unanimously - say "To take on the Tigers we had to drive our T-34s up close, and get on the flank".?

Thanks for setting me straight on the physics engine. Since you seem to know the CMBB physics engine well, could you please explain to me how it managed to model the AP performance of the Soviet 76.2mm gun accurately (as you maintain) and at the same time model the AP performance of the Soviet 85mm gun somewhat inaccurately? (As you mention may be the case.)

[ April 26, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Clearly the round you are talking about came out in 1944 at least, and maybe even later. It is the follow-on to the BR-350 series.

Thank Bigduke and Zwollo.

I found that reference on the web site link you gave Bigduke. http://krieg.wallst.ru/frames-p/saurung.html

It seems that they give this round a penetration ability at 500 m and 90 degrees, 100mm. However, it seems they mean it was used in 1942, which makes it all the more confusing.

I take this to be the Zis-3 gun? :

76,2-мм ЗИС-3,

СУ-76, СУ-76И

[Zwollo2003]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

It seems that they give this round a penetration ability at 500 m and 90 degrees, 100mm. However, it seems they mean it was used in 1942, which makes it all the more confusing.

I take this to be the Zis-3 gun? :

76,2-мм ЗИС-3,

СУ-76, СУ-76И

ZIS-3, SU-76, SU-76i.

I have looked at the page you linked. If I am reading the table correctly, it shows constant penetration at 100m and 500 m. but nothing afterwards as if the round does not work beyond 500m at all. I am inclined to think this is a HEAT round, with penetration unaffected by distance but likely to be inaccurate at longer ranges. Also, if it is true, then the designation shown on that site is probably a simple typo (UBP-354M is an existing designation of a HEAT shell, with BP 350M HEAT projectile).

Did the Soviets field a HEAT round as early as 1942? I don't know...

BTW on the same site there is more penetration data at:

http://krieg.wallst.ru/frames-p/panzerrung.html

Zwolo

[Panzer76]

Battlefield also shows that the BR-350B has worse penetration abilities than the BR-350A, but only for the F-22 gun :confused:

BR-350A

100m 500m

90° 82 75

BR-350B

90° 66 60

http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/field_5.html

For the F-34 gun it says the BR-350B is better, why can that be? :confused:

[ April 26, 2005, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Zwollo2003:

BTW on the same site there is more penetration data at:

http://krieg.wallst.ru/frames-p/panzerrung.html

Zwolo

Interesting link there, this site is shows the BR-350B having better perfomance than the BR-350A.

Could someone please translate this:

76,2-мм Ф-34,

Т-34 обр. 1941 г.

76,2-мм ЗИС-5,

КВ-1

76,2-мм Ф-34,

Т-34 обр. 1942 г.

ЗИС-5,

КВ-1С

I can guess what it says, but I want to be sure

[ April 26, 2005, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[Bigduke6]

Panzer76,

Basically you've got the picture. ZiS-3 was one of many versions of the 76.2mm gun. For practical purposes it was the same as the tank gun.

From my point of view the thing to remember is that the Soviets busily made rounds for this gun all through the war, and they kept improving it.

On the lower penetration numbers for the later periods, most of what I have read explains that on grounds the Soviets tested the '41 round, but after that they used formulae to figure penetration, and they low-balled the numbers a bit to CYA, and also maybe because the parameters they stuck into the formula were a little more rigorous than real life.

Not saying that was the fact, just that's what I've read on the "Why is it the numbers for the 76.2mm get worse over time?" mystery.

This is why I keep coming back to documented battlefield performance as the determinant I like. With all those rounds, studies, studies of studies, and float factors like test metal hardness etc, it becomes pretty impossible pretty quick to answer the question "So, just how good was this round from a mathematical point of view?"

What we can do is look at historical performance as recorded by battlefield participants - that's relatively simple and in general from what I can see the actual combatants didn't lie. If a weapon sucked, they said so, and if it worked, they said that too.

[Bigduke6]

Last post for today:

76.3mm F-34

T-34 Type 1941

76,2mm ZIS-5

КV-1

76,2mm F-34,

Т-34 Type 1942

ZIS-5,

КV-1S

[rune]

Bigduke,

fair enough. proof would be:

1. ANY written proof that the Russians lied about their own test firings in order to get the 85mm gun faster.

2. ANY written proof about the armour brinell values on the test plate used.

3. ANY proof that the American and British tests were flawed or lied about.

4. Why do I not accept a lack of written proof as evidence? Tiger I production was about 1355 tanks, at the high point, there were 671 in service. Subtract the ones on the West Front and Italy, and it would be a very rare encounter with a Tiger. lack of anything written doesn't mean a thing.

5. Why wowuld I argue about the StuG? Lorrin states 50 + 30 mm is more then 80mm due to the type of armour, and I have seen others state that it should be less. Unless you happen to have a StuG on you, who do you believe? I cannot prove either way. If you can, tell me how, am open to more research on this.

6. I also asked if you used the same model tank across the years, you didn't answer. The T34 used two types of guns. I said I will check that to see if you are correct. Nothing mysterious here.

7. That better round you talk about? Lets see:

"the BR-354B projectile replaced the BR-350B projectile in 1944." followed by ""In addition, Soviet quality control was generally poor and ammunition was substandard up until about 1944, which would degrade penetration in unpredictable ways. I would expect that this means that some ammunition would perform better than predicted and some worse, or even considerably worse."

It further says that there are no reliable source for penetration data for the BR-350B and the data that exist show that it would have lower penetration and less HE filler than the BR-350A.

BUT:

"It is likely that the reason for lack of BR-350B projectile data is that no actual tests were carried out and that the limited data presented is theoretical, leading to estimates of penetration performance which are unrealistically low."

And that overall the performance of the BR-350B was better than the BR-350A." OK, so they say the ammo could be worse or could be better, gee that helped to figure this out.

8. For the 85mm gun, how could it be wrong in the formula? Wrong velocity, wrong weight, wrong material of the shell, etc etc. I am NOT going to ask Charles to quit working on CMX2 to take a look, not that he would listen to me anyway.

I also read German Tiger accounts, none of which mentioned getting knocked out by a 76mm gun. Did it happen? Of course I believe it did, but a lack of writing proves nothing. People complain the cruiser tanks in CMAk should not burn easily, that there is no reason. Look at my sig for an answer, plus combat reports that 20 out of 22 cruiser tanks burned in an attack. If I was to believe this account:

"On July 7th of 1943, single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharfuehrer Franz Staudegger from 2nd Platoon of 13th Panzer Company of 1st SS Panzer Grenadier Division "LSSAH" engaged Soviet group of some 50 T-34 tanks around Psyolknee (southern sector of the Kursk salient). Staudegger used up his entire ammunition after destroying some 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For his achievement, Franz Staudegger was awarded the Knight's Cross."

I would think the Tiger could not be killed, of course I know better. I read accounts from both sides, read test firing reports, read everything I can find. The bottom line is I have NO definite proof that 15% undervalued is close. We have no idea on what the ammo problems effects were. We have no idea of the test plate, we have no idea on too much to base an opinion one way or another.

Any proof and I can change my mind easily. I am not going to base it on a feeling.

Besides, it isn't like CMBB is going to change. I have enought research to do on CMX2.

Rune

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by rune:

I do have a question for someone more knowledgable.

According to this site:

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/soviet_guns5.html

The Zis-3 gun, firing the exact smae shell as the F34 gun, but with a longer barrel and HIGHER velocity then the tank gun, has less penetration at 100 meters? I don't understnad that at all. Also the drop off of penetration value does not make sense to me either. Why the 19mm drop off in the first 400 meters, and only 9 in the next 500? Am serious, this does NOT make sense to me.

Rune

I would suspect that this is related in some way to the phenomenon described as 'shatter-gap'. Basically, the greater energy of the impact at close range, before the velocity falls away, acts against the shell rather than the armour. IIRC, it's something to do with the superposition of stress waves in the shell on impact.

The upshot is that the kinetic energy (KE) of the shell is used to damage the shell rather than the armour, hence the penetration will be worse.

[Panzer76]

Ok, so after trying to find as much info as possible on the penetration abilities of the F-34 gun, here is a summary:

Best/worst performance for the different rounds:

BR-350A

100m 500m

90 degrees 90/80 78/60

60 degrees 89/60 70/59

BR-350B

100m 500m

90 degrees 94/86 84/75

60 degrees 89/74 76/62

BR-350P(Tungsten)

100m 500m

90 degrees 102/102 92/90

60 degrees 92/90 77/77

Notes:

*BR-350A was prone to shatter, production stopped in 43.

*Ammunition quality was sub standard up to 43-44

*BR-350B production started in 42.

*BR-350P production started in Oct-43.

*There is mentioned a BR-354B round that replaced the BR-350B round in 44, but I have found no data about this round.

This data indicates that you should not be able to penetrate a Tigers 80mm side from 500m without T rounds. With BR-350A rounds you have to be alost point blank. With 350B rounds you would need to close to around 250m.