Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

[rune]

flamingknives,

I thought about that, but it doesn't explain the bigger drop off for the f34.

Rune

[Bigduke6]

Rune,

1. I don't know anything about Soviets low-balling the 76.2mm performance on paper to get the 85mm faster, so no comment there.

2. For Brinnel data see below.

3. I don't have any information about the Americans or Brits lying in their tests, no comment there.

4. See below for a first-hand account of a ZiS-3 killing a Ferdinand with a flank shot.

I concede Tiger side armor was probably about 5 per cent more effective than Ferdinand side armor.

However, I have produced a first-hand example of German 80mm armor overcome by the Soviet 76.2mm AP at close range. You (or any one else, as far as I know) have yet to introduce an example of the German 80mm armor defeating it.

5. You and I are at loggerheads on StuermGeschuetz. If JasonC's citations of memoirs of German StuG gunners themselves considering themselves vulnerable to the Soviet 76.2, I certainly can't do better than that.

6. Sorry about the lack of clarity. I am talking about the L/41 gun.

7. I suggest you read that site more closely. There is nothing to indicate the 1944-era BR-354B is worse than the BR-350B. Indeed, it is silly to assume so. Logically the Soviets improved the round - why introduce a lower-performing munition in 1944? The whole crux of my arguement is that the Soviets progressively improved their ammo, but CMBB doesn't reflect that.

You have yet to explain to me why, although the Soviets clearly introduced an improved round in 1944, the game engine does not reflect that change.

You also have yet to explain to me why the game engine makes the performance of the 76.2mm round best in 1941. worst in 1942, and second-worst in 1943.

I submit you aren't doing so, because you can't.

I challenge you to prove me wrong.

8. Am I correct in concluding you believe the game engine and its incorporation of the key functional data of the Soviet 76.2mm AP round - i.e. velocity, weight, shell material, etc etc - is correct?

9. "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."

Yesterday I posted the Russian Library site which has, in full text, the memoirs of most of the Soviet armor commanders. Have you looked at it?

Rune, don't get me wrong. No one including you and me is responsible to know everything about everything. I think CMBB is the very best wargame ever made, and I have been playing wargames for close to 30 years. You shouldn't take this as a general attack on CMBB.

Our basic disconnect is I am coming at this issue - the CMBB depiction of Soviet AP weapons close to the edge of their envelope - from combat commander accounts. I have an advantage in that the accounts are almost without exception only in Russian. Fortunately I read Russian.

You apparently are using a mathematical approach. From what I can tell you believe the way to determine how Soviet AP weapons performed on East Front battlefields is to figure the weight of the shell, its velocity, the thickness of the armor attacked etc. etc. don't forget the fudge factor, and if your engine is sophisticated enough you can model battlefield results.

My objection is that when battlefield accounts contradict the results produced by your mathematical model, you reject them outright.

I submit that guys like Rotmistrov, Katukov, Batov, etc. knew better how the Soviet 76.mm gun performed an East Front battlefield, than you and Charles. They were there, you were not. If your model doesn't perform the way they said there is, with my great respect, a problem with your model. It may not be big and it may not be crippling, but it exists.

The Soviet armor commanders are unanimous: the 76.2 was a great gun that could defeat German panzers at normal combat ranges until TigerI rolled down the pike, and then T-34s had to get close and on the flank to hurt the Tiger.

Here is some more background. I am intentionally keeping the number of sites low.

1. Memoirs by Vasily Grabin, the guy who designed most of the Soviet AT guns including all marks of the 76.2. Good for understanding the genral performance the Soviets were looking for.

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/grabin/15.html

2. An article in Voenna-Technichesky Zhurnal (Military-Technical magazine) – “T-34 denied Tiger/Panther advantages at close range" by I. Shmeleva Issue Number 11-12 1998

http://www.redtanks.bos.ru/t3476.htm

3. Recollections of Genrikh Fenras, ZiS-3 gunner –knocks out Ferdinand tank destroyer with single point-blank flank shot.

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/fernas/fernas_r.html

4. You doubtless know this English-language site. The sources cited concerning the 76.2mm gun are the Russian Military Zone, Zaloga’s Red Army Handbook, Zaloga’s T-34/76 Medium Tank, and Soviet Guns 1920 – 1945.

The pop-ups are a big pain. You are warned.

a. Essay on Soviet mathematical modeling, problems in predicting penetration by 76.2mm rounds, and a bit on how hard Soviet cast armor was:

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

b. Info on Soviet testing standards when computing armor-piercing capacity. Named sources are Robert Livingston and raw data from Allied tests:

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/soviet_hardness_gun.html

c. Info on Soviet vehicle armor, just to prove to you I didn't make up my claim about hard Soviet cast armor:

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/soviet_hardness_veh.html

[ April 27, 2005, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

3. Recollections of Genrikh Fenras, ZiS-3 gunner –knocks out Ferdinand tank destroyer with single point-blank flank shot.

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/fernas/fernas_r.html

Since you seem knowledgable about these things, you do knw that it was not uncommon for Soviet tankers to call any SP/TD for a Ferdinand? Not saying this is the case here, just mentioning it.

Remember, the Soviet tanker had in limited quantity heat treated BR-350A/B rounds, which had better performance than the reg rounds. And they had a round specifically designed to KO the Tiger. None of these rounds are modeled in CMBB.

[Bigduke6]

I basically agree with Panzer's review of the sources/data/sites. If the 76.2AP reliably penetrated the side of Tiger at say 250-300m., I would say that's pretty much in keeping with what I have read.

The Red armor commanders seem to agree - again from what I can tell - you had to get close to the side of a Tiger to kill it, but it wasn't point blank, and if you got close you definately could kill it.

So if the CMBB 76.2 was about 10 per cent better, we wouldn't even be having this arguement...

[Bigduke6]

Panzer,

Oh sure, that "Ferdinand" in the report could well have been an Elefant, Nashorn, etc. Although in that case, you have a situation where a lightly-armored tank destroyer at the front end of a German attack drives up on a concealed ZiS-3 position - and Germans didn't lead attacks with thin-skinned tank destroyers. But sure, no way you can say that account is conclusive.

From what I can tell "Ferdinand" to some extent was Red Army slang for "Mucking Great Assault Gun". It's easy to find problems with battlefield accounts, they are by their very nature limited.

That's why I keep coming back to commander accounts. They were the guys with the information, they were the ones making the battlefield decisions.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Panzer,

[snip]

From what I can tell "Ferdinand" to some extent was Red Army slang for "Mucking Great Assault Gun". It's easy to find problems with battlefield accounts, they are by their very nature limited.[more snip]

Usually, Ferdinand means StuG.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

Usually, Ferdinand means StuG.

That was my impression also. But that may be logical since the Stug was the most numerous assualt gun.

[DEY]

Here is some interesting comments on PENETRATION VS. ARMOR BASICS from Matrix games.

http://spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm

[rune]

last post on this, as again you are assuming too much. What I am saying is the 15% figure you quote is based on a feeling, while actual gun firing reports vary. I also believe the Tiger was killed at 250 meters, the Russian training agrees with this, but I do NOT aceept the 500 meters without some sort of proof. lack of writing on a tank shrugging off a hit doesn't surprise me, there was nothing note worthy about it.

The problem with some of these reports is they are too vague. At what range was the StuG killed at? Just as I don't expect the Tiger killing 22 out of 50 tanks means anything without knowing the details. As for the data, Lorrin knows his stuff, and others who opinions I value disagree. these are people who live for this, if they cannot agree, I am not certainly going to know for sure one way or another.

I also agree the round 350B should be better. the point I am making, is 60 years after the fact, we still cannot find good documentation.

You assume I reject them outright. Again, I do not. However, being the skeptic that I am, i just do NOT rule out ACTUAL test firings. To me, that is rejecting evidence that points against your thesis. Give me a reason to doubt the test firings, to reject their data. Lack of writing is NOT proof. Storys of how the 76.2 killed a Tiger is useless without knowing all the details. Valaera has a excellent account of taking out a Ferdinand from a veteran, where valera himself says it had to be a StuG. Give me proof, other then a few stories.

I don't argue the 76mm was good against the Panzer II, IIIs and IVs, no doubt. I just find the 15% figure doubtful. Also they said the gun was great until the Tiger. OK, then what about after the Tiger?

This article from tactical and technical trends, December, 1943 is interesting:

An article recently published in the Soviet Artillery Journal gave detailed instructions for the use of antitank weapons against the German Tiger tank. Vulnerability of various parts of the tank was cited in connection with directions for attack. The accompanying sketch shows vulnerable points and indicates weapons to be used against them. Material concerning the vulnerability of German tanks was published in Tactical and Technical Trends No. 8, p. 46 and No. 11, p. 28. Detailed information about the Tiger tank was published in Tactical and Technical Trends No. 34, p. 13.

A translation of the Soviet Artillery Journal article follows:

"The mobility of tanks depends upon the proper functioning of the suspension parts -- sprocket (small driving wheel), idler (small wheel in the rear), wheels and tracks. All of these parts are vulnerable to shells of all calibers. A particularly vulnerable part is the sprocket.

"Fire armor-piercing shells and HE shells at the sprocket, the idler and the tracks. This will stop the tank. Fire at the wheels with HE shells. Also, when attacking a tank, use AT grenades and mines. If movable mines are used, attach three or four of them to a board and draw the board, by means of a cord or cable, into the path of an advancing tank.

[German Tiger Panzer VI -- Vulnerability of Tiger Tanks]

"There are two armor plates on each side of the tank. The lower plate is partly covered by the wheels. This plate protects the engine and the gasoline tanks which are located in the rear of the hull, directly beyond and over the two rear wheels.

"Fire at the lower plates with armor-piercing shells from 76-, 57- and 45-mm guns. When the gasoline tanks are hit, the vehicle will be set on fire. Another method of starting a fire within the tank is to pierce the upper plates on the sides of the tank, thus reaching the ammunition compartments and causing an explosion.

"The rear armor plate protects the engine as well as giving additional protection to the gasoline tanks. Shells from AT guns, penetrating this armor, will disable the tank.

"The turret has two vision ports and two openings through which the tank’s crew fire their weapons. The commander’s small turret has five observation slits. There are two sighting devices on the roof of the front of the tank, one for the driver, the other for the gunner. Also, in the front of the tank there is a port with a sliding cover.

"The turret is a particularly important and vulnerable target. Attack it with HE and armor-piercing shells of all calibers. When it is damaged, use AT grenades and incendiary bottles (Molotov cocktails).

"There is a 10-mm slit all around the base of the turret. AT gun and heavy machine-gun fire, effectively directed at this slit, will prevent the turret from revolving and thus seriously impair the tank's field of fire. Furthermore, hits by HE shell at the base of the turret may wreck the roof of the hull and put the tank out of action.

"The tank’s air vents and ventilators are under the perforations in the roof of the hull, directly behind the turret. Another air vent is in the front part of the roof, between the two observation ports used by the radio operator and the driver. Use AT grenades and incendiary bottles against these vents.

"Explode antitank mines under the tank to smash the floor and put the tank out of action."

Accompanying sketch shows vulnerable points and indicates weapons to be used against them.

I cannot post the picture, but the article specifically shows that the 76mm guns are to aim for the LOWER hull, where the armour is 60mm. This is at 500 meters or less, they are told NOT to fire at about 500 meters.

So, basically, I do believe the 76mm can kill a Tiger, but not at 500 meters unless a lucky shot. I do NOT discount test firings, I do not think 15% means ANYTHING, as you stated it could be 10%. heck with the ammo it could be 5% we just do not know. We do NOT know what the effect of the bad ammo was. As I said, someone has something in writing, with details, and I can accept it, but in the meantime, the jury is still out.

As I said, last post on this, not because of opinions, I respect bigduke's thoughts, but we won't get anywhere without more information. besides, it is NOT like the game is going to get another patch. CMX2 moves forward, and I have more then enough work to do on it.

However, if I find anything else either way, will post it when I get a chance.

Rune

[rune]

Wouldn't you know it, as soon as I post htis, found a site that has the photo and other interesting articles from WWII. A must read, but doesn't really help either way.

http://www.lonesentry.com/

Scroll down to the Intelligence Bulletin Articles section.

Rune

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by rune:

flamingknives,

I thought about that, but it doesn't explain the bigger drop off for the f34.

Rune

Why not? Non-linear events (like projectile-armour) tend not to follow predictable trends

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Panzer,

[snip]

From what I can tell "Ferdinand" to some extent was Red Army slang for "Mucking Great Assault Gun". It's easy to find problems with battlefield accounts, they are by their very nature limited.[more snip]

Usually, Ferdinand means StuG. </font>

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by DEY:

Here is some interesting comments on PENETRATION VS. ARMOR BASICS from Matrix games.

http://spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm

These are taken from Rexfords book

[Bigduke6]

Rune,

It appears we can lay this one to rest in general agreement, at least on the big stuff.

Personally I am not a numbers/process kind of guy. I am a results kind of guy. If the game were to reproduce the result that 76.2mm AP reliably penetrates German 82mm side armor at close combat ranges, I would be as happy as a swine in odure.

You and I seem to agree the engine doesn't really replicate that. Maybe you will accuse me of assuming again, but your last post seems pretty clear to me.

I could care less whether some one maths out that difference and determines the Soviet 76.2 underperforms by 5 per cent or 15 per cent or 50 per cent. All I want is to be able to bust the side of Tiger if can work a T-34/76 to somewhere below 300 meters. And I am not alone.

If you could wave a magic wand and change the engine with a 3 or 0.3 per cent "bump" to the gun, and that would do the job against Tiger sides, then I would shut up.

You and I clearly also agree that change, though theoretically desirable, isn't going to happen in CMBB.

We aren't going to agree about Stugs apparently. Well I can live with that.

I am a bit sorry you never answered my questions about why you think the game gives such wierd, and even deteriorating performance to the 76.2mm round, and why the game never takes into account the fact the Soviets fielded a better round for the weapon in 1944. If you find out, I really am curious.

I am also moderately disturbed that you continue to discount, ok, seem to me to discount, the memoirs of Soviet armored commanders. By this I mean that I have the impression that if you are presented with a choice between weapons test data and recollections of combat veterans, you will select weapons test data as the better base for building a computer model of WW2 armored combat. I can see how it would be easier.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but if you keep to that attitude and you talk the design team to your way of thinking CMX, may well repeat wholly preventable glitches like the great "Underpowered Soviet AT weapons debate".

That's the whole point to this exchange, really. During playtesting frontally-invulnerable Stugs should have been caught. Yes it's awfully easy for me to make that statement.

I will be optimistic. If the net result of all this is to get more of CMX's designers to read Rokkosovsky and Konev (which are in English), I'll count all this typing as time well spent.

In any case, you and I both know when the next version of the game comes out, I am going to buy it.

P.S. - Thanks for the post from the Soviet Artillery Journal. Interestingly, if you look in this forum under the thread "How to Attack a Tiger I", you will find I translated about half of what appears to be a very similar text for forum readers about a month ago. Dorosh found the leaflet and posted the link. Some of the text appears to match word for word. What I translated came from a leaflet the Soviets handed out to grunt-level troops.

[rune]

I AM with the design team, and that we why we will NOY make a change without definite proof. For each person that says a tank is under-modeled, there will be another saying it is over-modeled.

As for the StuGs, found this when I took my son to get a book at Barnes:

From Panzer Operatiosns, The Eastern Front Memoir of General Raus, 1941-1945 Pages 231-235

"The T-34s now constituted the backbone of the defense, just as they provided the momentum in the morning. Every weapon we could bring to bear was firing from all sides, but this had little effect unless an armor-piercing round chanced to scote a direct hit and set one ablaze. Our assault guns represented the most dangerous threat to the T-34s, had a difficult mission to fulfill, as the enemy tanks--numerically superior--stubbornly held their ground and forced our StG III to approach at POINT-BLANKrange. Many of our assault guns suffered direct hits on their reinforced frontal armor before they could manage to incapacitate a single T34. One the top plate of the frontal armor on any given StG III was smashed, this vehicle had to be relegated to a secondary place in the rear of those of its fellows whose front armor remained intact.

Despite these difficulties, the assault guns gradually made headway; after an hour five T-34s were burning whereas only a few of our StG IIIs had sustained light damage, and all remained in operation...

The story goes on, but there you have it, point blank fire from T34s did not destroy a single StuG. Only after the TOP armor was damage did they get roated to the second echelon. Since I believe the author, why would I then dismiss him out of hand?

As for the %, it DOES make a great difference. Too much, and the Tiger is too vulerable, too little, and it isn't vulernable either. Do we just ignore test firings, based on nothing but general comments without supporting evidence? I think not. I DO agree that the Tiger should suffer at point blank range and suffer under 200 meters. I WISH we had the ability of aimed shots in the first CM series, it would also change the outcome WITHOUZT changing the penetration values.

As for the 76mm, I am not sitting at home, ready tot est things at a whim. Besides working my full time job, refereeing soccer [almost playoff time] amd helping with CMX2, Down in Flames, and other projects, time is scarce.

As for catching it in play testing, why would you think it would be caught? The game has been out 4 years, and only in the last year some doubt was raised. However, others point out the 50+30 is more then 80, and the above quote from a German General support that position. We throw out that arguement based on what?

Last, I find it insulting your comment about " but if you keep to that attitude and you talk the design team to your way of thinking CMX, may well repeat wholly preventable glitches like the great "Underpowered Soviet AT weapons debate". Asking for PROOF on a statement will not ruin anything, it will make the game more accurate.

I am done with this thread.

Rune

[rune]

As for the t34 ammo getting worse. Scenario design, parameters June of each year, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945. Each year I picked a T34 except the model 40, which has a different gun. The penetration values for the round are the same across all years models. Same velocity, same shell, same values. Anyone itnerested can do their own test or I can forward the screnario to be opened int he editor to look for yourself. E-mail me if you are interested.

Rune

[Bigduke6]

Rune,

I thought you were finished with this thread last exchange, when you wrote it was your last message.

I disagree strongly with your concept of "definitive proof". I am now confident that you see "definitive proof" for the purposes of this discussion as numerical weapons performance data produced by a testing team on a firing range.

You do not as nearly as I can tell accept historical accounts by combat participants as valid grounds for tweaking an combat simulation engine. You see such accounts as, in your words, "general comments without supporting evidence."

If you create a computer simulation of East Front combat dismissing recollections of those participants as "general comments without supporting evidence," then in my view you undermine the simulation's claim to historical fidelity.

I am not surprised you think the percentage is a big deal and I do not. As I pointed out, there is a basic difference between your approach and my approach to this. I focus on results and you focus on numbers and process. I agree, too bad CMBB did not allow aimed shots.

You and I agree (you tacitly) that the 76.2mm underperforms in the engine to some extent. We agree we really don't know how much, but at least to the extent that the engine ought to allow the gun to defeat 80mm armor at close ranges, and it doesn't. So frankly our positions aren't hugely apart.

Second to finally, I didn't mean to insult you and I apologize for that. Please understand that what you consider "general comments without supporting evidence," I consider the starting and ending point for what happened on an East Front battlefield. In my opinion, primary sources are definitive, and always more valid for figuring out what happened in combat, than data generated in a controlled environment on a firing range.

After all, CM is supposed to replicate combat, not firing ranges.

Besides, the way I see it, it is almost as easy to poke holes in firing range data, as it is to poke a hole in a first-hand account.

Finally my best wishes on your upcoming soccer play-offs. I am a Dynamo Kyiv enthusiast myself. Perhaps you have heard of Valery Lobanovsky?

[ April 28, 2005, 03:06 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[TheVulture]

Bigduke6: Patr of the problem is that eyewitness accounts to just about anything are notoriously unreliable, even a few minutes after the events, never mind a few years. Memoirs of tank commanders, for all that they were there and had a vested interest in observing things accurately, are exactly the kind of thing that has been proven time and again to be capable of surprisingly large errors. Those data carry some weight, but are very far from being definitive proof. Which is why Rune (and others) presumably want to see some convincing physical data that isn't subject to unreliable memory or mistaken observation before committing to changes.

Firing range data might not model battlefield reality perfectly, but it does give some idea of the ranges of what is physically possible. An AT gunner writing how his 45 mm gun could frontally penetrate a Tiger from a range of 1500 meters might well have been there, but if tests show that the gun can't even penetrate 30 mm of armour at that range then no-one is going to believe the account.

Neither kind of data is definitive. Pretty much no data is ever definitive, on it's own. It's when data from several different avenues of approach all take you to the same place that you begin to have something concrete. When they disagree, you simply have uncertainty. You can't gain certainty by saying that one source is reliable and another isn't. The reality may be that you simply can't know. Good enough data just don't exist.

[Panzer76]

Ok, did some testing in CMBB. 6 Elite T34m43 firing at Reg Tiger side, from 100m and 250m.

Only used regular ammo, no T rounds.

I testet for Oct42, Oct43 and Oct 44 to see the envolvement in ammo types, if any.

LH = Lower Hull

UH = Upper Hull

T = Turret

B = Bounced

P = Partial Penetration

F = Full Penetration

Oct42 - 250 m

Shots: 24

LH: 2 hits. B: 0% P: 0% F: 100%

UH: 18 hits. B: 83% P: 11% F: 6%

T: 6 hits. B: 50% P: 50% F: 0%

Oct 42 - 100m

Shots: 15

LH: 2 hits. B: 0% P:0% F: 100%

UH: 7 hits. B: 43% P: 57% F: 0%

T: 6 hits. B: 50% P: 50% F: 0%

Oct 43 - 250m

Shots: 21

LH: 2 hits. B: 0% P:0% F: 100%

UH: 12 hits. B: 25% P: 58% F: 7%

T: 7 hits. B: 0% P: 100% F: 0%

Oct 43 - 100m

Shots: 26

LH: 6 hits. B: 0% P:0% F: 100%

UH: 14 hits. B: 21% P: 64% F: 15%

T: 6 hits. B: 17% P: 50% F: 33%

Oct 44 - 250m

Shots: 21

LH: 3 hits. B: 0% P:0% F: 100%

UH: 12 hits. B: 25% P: 75% F: 0%

T: 6 hits. B: 17% P: 83% F: 0%

Oct 44 - 100m

Shots: 15

LH: 0 hits. B: 0% P: 0% F: 0%

UH: 8 hits. B: 12% P: 38% F: 50%

T: 7 hits. B: 0% P: 57% F: 43%

So, during all years, you will fully penetrate th elower hull, as you would expect.

There is a huge difference between 42 and 43/44 in terms of performance.

Discussing only T and UH hit performace:

In 42 from 250 m only 25% do not bounce off, and most of them only get partial penetrations.

In 43 the same number is 86% and for 44 it's 78%. Due to the limited test I think we can say that from 43 and onwards, around 80-85% of the rounds will get mostly partial penetrations, with a few full ones.

When it comes to performance at the 100 m range, they are as follows:

In 42 you will get approx 50% partial penetrations and no full penetrations. In 43 the same number is 80% including a chance to get full penetrations. For 44 it's a whooping 93% chance and half of them will be full penetrations.

In conclusion, in 42 you would want to be point blank if you want to take on the Tiger, and the only way you get full penetrations is if you get a lower hull hit, which is difficult.

In 43 you can engange from 300m or less, and have a good chance for a partial penetration. If you close to 100m, you will not increase your chance to get penetrations much.

In 44 you can as in 43 engage from 300m or less. If you get really close, you have a good chance on getting full penetrations.

Incidentally, this pretty much agrees with the performancedata, already accepted by you BigDuke , for the BR-350A and BR-350B rounds already presented. The conclusion must then be that there is no significant failure in the simulation of the 76.2mm gun.

The contested performance against the Stug would be on the basis that the StugIII's front is overmodeled, which it patently is (the 50mm front of the gun cradle is not modeled, etc).

Other abnormalities can be explained by the lack of the heat treated BR-350A/B round in CMBB as well as the "Tiger round".

I hearby give the CMBB simulation of the 76.2mm performance, a clean bill of health! [Fanfare]

Remember, this is from approx 90 degrees, and the results will vary significantly in combat situations with less than optimal angle of attack.

Also, I would like to add that even partial penetrations stood a good chance of KOing the Tiger, multiple times I saw the first part pen KO.

But, as always, do not attack with only 1 tank at the time, use a platoon or more if possible.

The life expectancy in this test for the Tiger in 42 was around 20 seconds, in 43-44 more like 10 seconds.

[ April 28, 2005, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

[rune]

From http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-02.htm

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 tank. The nominal cost of a Tiger was 250,000 Reichsmarks. In contrast, a PzKpfw III cost RM 96,200, a PzKpfw IV RM 103,500, and a PzKpfw V Panther RM 117,000; all these figures are exclusive of weapons and radios.

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.).

All this considered, and analyzing the tables above, it stands clear that, "based on opposing ranges, without considering other factors, the Tiger I had only been outclassed by the Russian Josef Stalin heavy tank with the 122 mm gun" (Again, JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.). The rule of thumb was that it took at least five American M4 Sherman medium tanks to knock out a cornered Tiger. When speaking of opposing ranges, it becomes necessary to take a look at another essential Tiger I feature: the KwK 36 L/56 8.8 cm gun.

Rune

[Bigduke6]

Guys,

Panzer76's tests are pretty convincing. The results seem to me to be not so far off from what the Red commanders wrote was the case if you're talking TigerI.

I guess if the game took into account heat-treated 76.2AP rounds, aiming for sprockets, the fielding of the BR-345A/B then it would probably produce results just like the Red commanders said. It doesn't, but there it is.

StuGs, well, StuGs are StuGs and there's nothing I can do about it.

Rune, thanks for the essay, it explains some things. I still have some niggling unanswered questions, but I'll be quiet for now. (Fanfare)

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I guess if the game took into account heat-treated 76.2AP rounds, aiming for sprockets, the fielding of the BR-345A/B then it would probably produce results just like the Red commanders said. It doesn't, but there it is.

Scenario makers simulate the heat treated rounds by adding a few (1-4) T rounds to the T34. Too bad CMBB does not simulate these special rounds, oh well.

[JasonC]

rune - get a PAK 40. Shoot 10000 rounds at 80mm plate. After they all go clean through, admit that those telling you they bounce off are lying to you.

You may then freely speculate as to why, with the rest of us. I have no idea if my speculation as to why they lied, is correct. I know that they are lying, because the claim is physically complete nonsense.

Pretending there is anything to trust in a report that baldly states that PAK 40 bounces from 80mm at 500m, is just pretending.

[JasonC]

rune - you are reading more into your own reports than they state. "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."

Mainly by, means some hits were from other weapons. Either 76mm HE, or 45mm AP, are the likely others. The ranges are explicitly said to be above 500m, no claim is being made about any round fired from closer than that. No specific claim is even being made about 76mm at exactly 500m, since mainly by and from 500-1000 leaves open 45mm at 500m and 76mm at 700m etc. Moreover, there is no direct statement that the hits included side hits, or what portion of them were side hits, or side hits from what ranges. I assume you have the date, but haven't given it. Later, obviously B ammo is more common than in the early Tiger fights in February and March of 1943, when the Russians would have A.

Also, it is a typical uber Tiger tale, where every Tiger kills 5-14 tanks per outing, without loss. One has only to do a little math to see this cannot have been the norm. The average Tiger managed to take out about 5 enemy tanks in a month or two during the Kursk fighting, while going through the shop itself, for instance, not every afternoon without loss.

(How can be tell? The number of German 88mm weapons at Kursk - Tigers and Elephants and Nashorns and dismounted 88mm FLAK - the portion of Russian wrecks with 88mm holes in them - most had 75mm holes, only about a quarter 88mm - and the total number lost - middle thousands. The Tigers and Elephants can be more effective than the thin and dismounted 88s certainly, but can't get more than all of them).

[JasonC]

On the 30+50 report, does CM model the top plate being destroyed by the first hit? Oops, no it does not. And what is the supposed explanation for the failure of the StuGs to disable a single T-34 until they get to "point blank" range? Is the 75L48 going to be reworked so it can't penetrate 45@60 until 200m? No, because we know that is wrong. Then there is the fact that after all is said and done, 5 T-34s have been disabled.

What I see is a mish mash of facts about fighting T-34s in StuGs, all jumbled into one engagement, despite not making sense combined. A 75L24 StuG would indeed need to get to point blank range before disabling an early model T-34 - unless you can hit the turret ring at range. A StuGs with 30+50 armor would indeed be willing to duel T-34s frontally and kill them - at longer ranges. And would indeed be rotated to the rear once hit, to let a vehicle with an intact plate go first. And a typical duel between a platoon (or company - it doesn't say) or later StuGs with T-34s, would be 5 dead T-34s to a few lightly damaged StuGs - if the range were 800m, which is what other accounts say they tried for, not point blank.

But there aren't any 30+50 StuGs with 75L24, to combine them into an account where you have to drive the StuG to point blank to kill the T-34 and can't kill it from range, at the same time that the StuG can absorb T-34 fire, as long as its upper armor is intact. Both statements are true of different periods - 50mm front 75L24 StuGs in 1941 and early 1942 had the first problem, and 30+50mm front 75L48 StuGs in late 1942 and in 1943 had the second advantage.

But the combo in one engagement is imaginary. The typical sort of confusion one gets in a retailed account, where some officer interviewed a bunch of StuG drivers to ask them what mattered fighting T-34s, and jumbled all the answers together because he wasn't aware of the relevant distinctions, and thought he was talking about just one match up, not several that changed through time.