Timber Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Hello everybody I would like to request for the penetration stats for these guns: 88mm Kwk43,75mm Kwk42,88mm Kwk36,122mm D-25 against the same armor at these angles: 0*, 30*, and 60* I would really appriciate the info... All the best, Timber 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 At which ranges? Do you not have CMBB? www.battlefield.ru has some good data 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timber Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 From 500m/1000m/1500m/2000m/2500m/3000m I dont really considder Combatmissions tables as accurate, and i dont trust info from biased websites such as Battlefield.ru, but thanks anyway. I was thinking about if i could come in contact with "Rexford" on this forum, since after reading some of his posts he seems to know a great deal about ballistics and penetration. It has something to do with T/D effects and so on, and i would really like to know about it. Again Flamingknives thanks for trying though Cheers; Timber 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Originally posted by Timber: [snips] I dont really considder Combatmissions tables as accurate, and i dont trust info from biased websites such as Battlefield.ru, but thanks anyway. If you think the CM figures are inaccurate, and you don't trust Battlefield.ru, then I think you are unlikely to find any data anywhere you will consider satisfactory. Originally posted by Timber: I was thinking about if i could come in contact with "Rexford" on this forum, since after reading some of his posts he seems to know a great deal about ballistics and penetration. It has something to do with T/D effects and so on, and i would really like to know about it. You can hardly do better than to obtain a copy of Bird (Rexford) & Livingstone's book on "WW2 ballistics: Guns and Armor". But they use Battlefield.ru as one of their sources, and much of the CM penetration model is AIUI based on their work, so if you don't believe those, what will you believe? All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timber Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 Well first of its impossible that the 122mm D-25 would penetrate the frontal glacis armor on the Panther at 2500m and 1500m as suggested in Battlefield.ru, so thats one of the reasons i dont believe that site. Secondly the site also says the 88mm Kwk43 would penetrate allmost 280mm of FH vertical armor at 400m with the Pzgr.39(APCBC), while theoreticly according to Bird and livingstones book it shouldnt be able to do that. And in CMBB the Kwk43 only penetrates 121mm of 30* sloped armor at 2000m, when in reallity it would penetrate 132mm of 30* sloped armor at 2000m on an average. Cheers; Timber [ October 31, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Timber ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folbec Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Are you aware that the definition of "penetration" is different for each country ? That the firing test setup is also different, that the quality of ammo used on tests may not be the same as on the battlefield ? Comparing German and Russian values for penetration is difficult, and the figures in CMBB and CMAK seems to be computed for different type of armor (normal for one / face hardened for the other). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Originally posted by Timber: Well first of its impossible that the 122mm D-25 would penetrate the frontal glacis armor on the Panther at 2500m and 1500m as suggested in Battlefield.ru, so thats one of the reasons i dont believe that site. Secondly the site also says the 88mm Kwk43 would penetrate allmost 280mm of FH vertical armor at 400m with the Pzgr.39(APCBC), while theoreticly according to Bird and livingstones book it shouldnt be able to do that. And in CMBB the Kwk43 only penetrates 121mm of 30* sloped armor at 2000m, when in reallity it would penetrate 132mm of 30* sloped armor at 2000m on an average. Cheers; Timber You should share the sources where you get this with the designers, if they prove reliable they will use them in future games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timber Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 Well the sources are from Battlefield.ru and Bird and Livingston, plus alot from Tom Jentz wich qoutes the official german test reports, and that the Kwk43 penetrated 132mm against a 30* sloped plate, and that is only an average given after the tests meaning actual penetration might have been alot higher. As for Russian tests, well they allmost always turn out surealistic and impossible, wich is because the Russians didnt do alot of inspection on the test-plate or tank they were shooting at, wich would explain the high results with the 88mm Kwk43 and 122mm D-25 gun at Kubinka. [ November 02, 2004, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Timber ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timber Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 These are tests with the 88mm Kwk43 done by the germans in 43 and 44 against good quality armorplates, i believe the tests were carried out in Kassel Germany. Tests with Pzgr.39-1 (APCBC)/ Pzgr.39/43(APCBC) against a 30 degree sloped testplate: 500m: 183mm / 185mm 1000m: 167mm / 165mm 1500m: 153mm / 148mm 2000m: 139mm / 132mm Tests carried out in Britain with the Kwk43, turned out even higher because of different test-criteria. Primary sources: "German Artillery of WWII" by Ian V. Hogg, and "TigerII Heavy tank 1942-1945" by Tom Jentz. [ November 02, 2004, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Timber ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Also note that the penetration data for some guns is much higher in CMAK, notably for the 75mm L/43-48 and L/70. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timber Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 But im talking about CMBB, where the penetration for the German guns is notably to low. Timber 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Perhaps the figures given in CMBB are for a different armour type than other tests? Just a thought, with regards to the performance of the high calibre Russian guns, the 'penetration' quoted in certain tables could well be less than the amount of armour the gun can actually defeat. There's a great deal of energy in such heavy shells, and they are quite blunt, so the impact could cause massive spalling damage which is quite satisfactory in dealing with a hostile AFV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timber Posted November 7, 2004 Author Share Posted November 7, 2004 Well that is indeed just a thought because the kenetic energy of shell also needs to correspond to dimension of the shell to be effective, wich the Russian 122mm shell for the 122mm D25 gun doesnt. Timber 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 A certain amount of extrapolation on my part, but the 100mm Russian ATG was found to be capable of defeating targets it did not penetrate by spalling effects. As (using www.battlefield.ru data) the muzzle energy of the 122mm AP shell is somewhat greater than that of the 100mm shell (15MJ vs. 12MJ), I see no reason why similar occurances for similarly blunt shells would not be possible. Accounting for Energy density, the 122mm shell comes out ahead, with 25kJ/mm^2 as opposed to 24kJ/mm^2 for the 100mm shell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timber Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 Well the the energy from a 100mm shell is distributed over smaller area than on a 122mm shell, and thats why the 100mm shell has better penetration caracteristics. In fact "Allthough not according to Battlefield.ru" the 100mm Bs3 had better penetration than the 122mm D25, and the penetration tales for the 122mm gun on that site are absolutely ridiculous... Please excuse my bad english as im not english. Timber 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 No problem with the English - I'm sure it's better than any of my second languages, but you're a bit off with your understanding of my post. The 122mm shell has a larger area, but it also has more energy. By dividing energy by area, you get an energy density, and the 122mm has a slight advantage there as well. 100mm shell: 24kJ/mm^2 122mm shell: 25kJ/mm^2 So for the same impact area, the 122mm shell has more energy than the 100mm. Of course, the design of the shell - it's sharpness, hardness and strength - has a great impact on actual penetration, but for causing spalling damage, the kinetic energy carried by the shell is more important. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timber Posted November 8, 2004 Author Share Posted November 8, 2004 So very true.. But the 100 Bs3 had a better "Clean" penetration performance because of its smaller size and better ballistics over long range, but yes the 122mm shell was better for cracking and spalling armor, wich i think the russians sometimes considders a penetration. As for the Germans they needed 66.6% of their projectiles to completely and cleanly penetrate the test-plate, whereas the russians needed 66.6-75% of their projectiles to partly penetrate at least 75-80% of the test-plate. This is many times forgotten. Timber [ November 08, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Timber ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Another of the problems of trying to measure armour penetration. Geometry of the two shells would be a useful thing to look at. One thing: you base some of your complaints against the CMBB armour penetration figures on the works of Lorrin Bird. As, in the guise of Rexford*, he provided much of the data for CMBB, there's some kind of problem with that. *though I think I've seen him posting as Lorrin recently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timber Posted November 9, 2004 Author Share Posted November 9, 2004 Yeah i know, i wasnt looking for stats actually, i was just trying to get to Rexford to tell him that if he based some of his knowledge on Lorrin's book, then he would be very wrong sometimes, as it is allmost all based on Russian tests, wich are seriusly overrated. I didnt know he was one of the author's though.. Anyway the book seems to be running from the facts, as German tests are not used, and im pretty sure U.S. tests at Aberdeen arent used in the equation either because the 75mm Kwk42 actually prooved itself superior to the 90mm M3 during tests at Aberdeen in 45, but in Lorrin's book that isnt the case. Kinda disturbing isnt it All the best, Timber 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.