Accurate gun data?

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

ToW doesn't use angle effects at all (other than LOS thickness increase, aka consinus).

when rune mentions their model matching bird/livingston within a millimetre I took that to mean they also accounted for the effects and aspects emphasized in their work on ww2 ballistics, such as compound angles, slope effects, face-hardening, high-hardness peculiarities, cast vs. rolled armor peculiarities, armor flaws, edge effects, the high-energy projectile failure shatter gap "and all that other stuff"

[Fritz of Norway]

there is 2 pages that should be checked.

1.: www.acthungpanzer.com

they have some info from the war aswell, like this one:

Nashorn in Action !

It is reported that in early March of 1945, Lieutenant Beckmann from sPzJagAbt 88 destroyed Soviet IS-2 at the range of 4600 meters near Marzdorf.

imagine the shot..."I can zee zomething in the horizon.....FIRE !!!"

2.: the best known and most accurate tank sim to date STIL is the original "Panzer Elite" and i know for a fact, that the forums there have ALL info of most weapons tested at most ranges, from most countrys.

that means everything from weather, angle, type of ammo, velocity, and all other thing's you can think off as important.

Sadly, I havent been on the original forum's for some time, as i'm only 1 of 2 peeps whom bought the game in Norway, or atleast played online with it.

[Krull]

Word.

[Krull]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

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

The part everyone is forgetting is you are basing on what is in the encloypedia. I didn't work on that, but rather the internal numbers.

to be fair, the encyclopedia is all these people have to go by to judge the authenticity of the game's ballistic values, since apparently they do not have access to these "internal numbers" you are referring to. If the encyclopedia gives other valus than the game uses, then it is both a) 1C/BTS's fault and b)questions the point of having that encyclopedia in the first place. The way it is it seems to be way more of a problem than a feature / aid.

AGAIN, the numbers are based on works by various authors. If I can contact them again and get permission, I will post some of their information.

authors is rather unspecific. The Dorsch is an author, Im an author, everyone's an author...

Sources include: Solomonov 44, Zetterling 00, Jentz 96, Ellis 93.

what kind of kryptic source quoting style is that?

and believe me Ive seen a lot of different quoting styles.

Zetterling, you mean his work on Normandy or the one on russian tank warfare co-authored with Frankson?

While Zetterling surely isnt the worst of works out there, I would definitely trust him more with organizational issues and not with hard technical details.

add-on: abovesaid notwithstanding, kudos to you and the work of the BTS/beta team on arriving at rexford/bird values. </font>

[rune]

Hof,

The "cryptic style" is from an article I was given, and would make more sense if I could post the entire article. I will NOT do so until I have the author's permission. Someone from your area and you have met [i think]. I'll drop him a line and see if I can get permission to post or send to people. Drop me an email. I didn't work on the encyclopedia, so I can't answer that.

Rune

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by rune:

Hof,

The "cryptic style" is from an article I was given, and would make more sense if I could post the entire article. I will NOT do so until I have the author's permission. Someone from your area and you have met [i think].

that would kinda narrow it down considerably

I'll drop him a line and see if I can get permission to post or send to people. Drop me an email. I didn't work on the encyclopedia, so I can't answer that.

Rune

was it outside the beta process?!? :confused:

[rune]

Question for matt, i was more then busy enough with other duties, and yes, I think you now know who I mean. He went through the numbers. Only question not sure on is the shatter gap, but I would assume so since the numbers match at range.

Rune

[rune]

OK, I got permission from John D Salt to post some of his article. I will not print out the whole thing, since it is hundreds of pages long. Again, many thanks to John for going over the numbers and giving permission for the article. The introductions for example:

Introduction

Aim of this document

This document, which I hope will prove useful to WW2 wargamers, gives penetration performance details of WW2 anti-tank weapons.

The origins of the document lie in the author’s irritation with the perpetual recurrence of similar questions concerning the penetration capability of various WW2 weapons arising on internet discussion groups such as soc.history.war.world-war-ii. It is unlikely that all argument on the matter will be eliminated, but this document provides, I believe, the most complete coverage of documentary evidence of WW2 armour penetration performance available anywhere.

Organisation of the document

The organisation of the document was completely revised at the end of 2004. Previously, sources had been summarised in alphabetical order of author’s name. They are now organised by country, and within country by weapon, so that all sources giving detail on any single weapon are in the same place. For each weapon, a table is given with rows for different sources and columns for increasing range bands.

All ranges are now given in metres, rather than the old method of using the units in the original source, whether metres, yards or (rarely) feet. I have made precise conversions using 0.9144 metres to the yard and then rounded to the nearest whole metre. In some cases where (typically due to successive conversions) sources give a range within three metres of each other, I have given these as being at the same range, so as not to proliferate columns beyond necessity.

As well as the new format, the introductory remarks have been considerably expanded.

Penetration criteria

To be useful, armour penetration figures should specify not only the gun, range and penetration achieved, but also the ammunition nature and model fired, the angle of impact, the type of armour attacked and the penetration criterion used. Very few sources provide all this information.

I believe that the usual British penetration proof criterion early in the war was to have the complete projectile length pass through the target plate on 80% of proof shots fired. Later, some tables give the “critical thickness” of armour, that is, the one for which a shot win and a plate win are equally likely. British firing trials from mid-war (1943) or earlier acknowledged three differently-defined critical velocities for projectiles:

The C/D Limit is the average of four or more velocities half of which give a “D” (cracked bulge) or worse damage and half of which give a “C” (bulge) or less damage.

The Ballistic Limit is the average of four or more velocities, half of which give “E”s (flaking from rear of plate, crack sufficient to see daylight or projectile visible behind plate) or worse damage and half “D”s (cracked bulge) or less damage.

The W/R Limit is the average of four or more velocities, half of which give “W”s (penetration with projectile clean through) and half “R”s (penetration with projectile not clean through) or less damage.

The Russians used two penetration criteria, the “Army” criterion requiring complete perforation of the plate, and the more demanding “Naval” criterion requiring the complete projectile to pass through.

The customary angle of impact when quoting penetration performance is 30º from the vertical, but some American weapons are quoted for 20º. German practice was (and current NATO practice is) to measure angles from the horizontal, so where 60º is stated, it is usually safe to assume that 30º from the vertical is intended. In action, unless firing from exactly right-angles to the target vehicle, there will be an additional angular component depending on the target tank’s facing. A table for rough conversions from sloped armour to an equivalent thickness of vertical plate is taken from WO 185/118; it will be seen that well-sloped armour seems to be more effective than would be indicated by a simple cosine calculation. The accompanying text says “It is considered, however, that the facts are too complex to be represented even approximately by any single armour basis curve, and, as illustrated in figures I to V, the armour basis curve varies widely according to the type of projectile and plate attacked.” “...in the case of the 6pdr the armour basis curve is wrong by 7% and in the case of the 2pdr wrong by 28%.” Curves for projectiles of different calibres are given in Niklas Zetterling’s “Normandy 1944”. The table below shows some of these numbers.

Source Calibre 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

WO 185/118 Any 0.99 0.94 0.80 0.66 0.53 0.40 --

Zetterling 2000 37mm 0.99 0.90 0.75 0.57 0.41 0.30 0.22

Zetterling 2000 50mm 0.99 0.92 0.79 0.63 0.47 0.35 0.26

Zetterling 2000 75mm 0.99 0.93 0.82 0.66 0.51 0.39 0.29

Zetterling 2000 88mm 0.99 0.93 0.83 0.67 0.52 0.40 0.31

Zetterling 2000 128mm 0.99 0.94 0.84 0.69 0.55 0.43 0.32

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by rune:

OK, I got permission from John D Salt to post some of his article. I will not print out the whole thing, since it is hundreds of pages long. Again, many thanks to John for going over the numbers and giving permission for the article. The introductions for example:

Introduction

Aim of this document

This document, which I hope will prove useful to WW2 wargamers, gives penetration performance details of WW2 anti-tank weapons.

The origins of the document lie in the author’s irritation with the perpetual recurrence of similar questions concerning the penetration capability of various WW2 weapons arising on internet discussion groups such as soc.history.war.world-war-ii. It is unlikely that all argument on the matter will be eliminated, but this document provides, I believe, the most complete coverage of documentary evidence of WW2 armour penetration performance available anywhere.

Organisation of the document

The organisation of the document was completely revised at the end of 2004. Previously, sources had been summarised in alphabetical order of author’s name. They are now organised by country, and within country by weapon, so that all sources giving detail on any single weapon are in the same place. For each weapon, a table is given with rows for different sources and columns for increasing range bands.

All ranges are now given in metres, rather than the old method of using the units in the original source, whether metres, yards or (rarely) feet. I have made precise conversions using 0.9144 metres to the yard and then rounded to the nearest whole metre. In some cases where (typically due to successive conversions) sources give a range within three metres of each other, I have given these as being at the same range, so as not to proliferate columns beyond necessity.

As well as the new format, the introductory remarks have been considerably expanded.

Penetration criteria

To be useful, armour penetration figures should specify not only the gun, range and penetration achieved, but also the ammunition nature and model fired, the angle of impact, the type of armour attacked and the penetration criterion used. Very few sources provide all this information.

I believe that the usual British penetration proof criterion early in the war was to have the complete projectile length pass through the target plate on 80% of proof shots fired. Later, some tables give the “critical thickness” of armour, that is, the one for which a shot win and a plate win are equally likely. British firing trials from mid-war (1943) or earlier acknowledged three differently-defined critical velocities for projectiles:

The C/D Limit is the average of four or more velocities half of which give a “D” (cracked bulge) or worse damage and half of which give a “C” (bulge) or less damage.

The Ballistic Limit is the average of four or more velocities, half of which give “E”s (flaking from rear of plate, crack sufficient to see daylight or projectile visible behind plate) or worse damage and half “D”s (cracked bulge) or less damage.

The W/R Limit is the average of four or more velocities, half of which give “W”s (penetration with projectile clean through) and half “R”s (penetration with projectile not clean through) or less damage.

The Russians used two penetration criteria, the “Army” criterion requiring complete perforation of the plate, and the more demanding “Naval” criterion requiring the complete projectile to pass through.

The customary angle of impact when quoting penetration performance is 30º from the vertical, but some American weapons are quoted for 20º. German practice was (and current NATO practice is) to measure angles from the horizontal, so where 60º is stated, it is usually safe to assume that 30º from the vertical is intended. In action, unless firing from exactly right-angles to the target vehicle, there will be an additional angular component depending on the target tank’s facing. A table for rough conversions from sloped armour to an equivalent thickness of vertical plate is taken from WO 185/118; it will be seen that well-sloped armour seems to be more effective than would be indicated by a simple cosine calculation. The accompanying text says “It is considered, however, that the facts are too complex to be represented even approximately by any single armour basis curve, and, as illustrated in figures I to V, the armour basis curve varies widely according to the type of projectile and plate attacked.” “...in the case of the 6pdr the armour basis curve is wrong by 7% and in the case of the 2pdr wrong by 28%.” Curves for projectiles of different calibres are given in Niklas Zetterling’s “Normandy 1944”. The table below shows some of these numbers.

Source Calibre 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

WO 185/118 Any 0.99 0.94 0.80 0.66 0.53 0.40 --

Zetterling 2000 37mm 0.99 0.90 0.75 0.57 0.41 0.30 0.22

Zetterling 2000 50mm 0.99 0.92 0.79 0.63 0.47 0.35 0.26

Zetterling 2000 75mm 0.99 0.93 0.82 0.66 0.51 0.39 0.29

Zetterling 2000 88mm 0.99 0.93 0.83 0.67 0.52 0.40 0.31

Zetterling 2000 128mm 0.99 0.94 0.84 0.69 0.55 0.43 0.32

Er...so why are T34s (and Shermans: see thread, 'Shermans, panthers & Tigers) getting the best of Tigers and Panthers on an alarmingly regular basis? You can post all the technical flummery in the world, but the in-game experience vis-a-vis real-world accounts from the people who were there speak for themselves: "something stinks".

And that's on top of the invisible trees and bushes etc.

[SirReal]

If I could be bothered, I'd set up the same scenario in both ToW and CM:BB:

One Tiger, immobilized, elite crew with only standard AP ammo, facing towards five immobilized T34/41, elite crews, only standard AP ammo.

Run the test at 100m, 500m and 1000m.

Compare the results. If there are significant differences between the average outcomes from CM:BB and ToW, we can conclude that one of the games are incorrect.

[ChrisND]

SirReal,

Actually they could both be incorrect.

Billybob,

Maybe it's because your tactics suck. I have had no problems whatsoever. In fact I just finished the Whittman scenario during which with three surrounded tigers, I dispatched about 15-20 tanks with no loss. We get your point, you've made it about 45 times already.

Tell you what, run a test for us and show, with pics and diagrams using a mission designed to test this "flaw", that T-34s and Shermans get teh best of Tigers and Panthers "on an alarming basis". Actually, don't bother, I'll do it myself. Expect me back to completely refute you in a couple of hours.

[Tripps]

Let me get this right tho - the in game data is notthe same as the actual calculations?

Whats the point of that??

Tomorrow I get a speeding ticket - BMW official statement "well yes, the little letters on your spedometer might indicate50 km/h - but you were probably doing 110km/h - our bad"

[rune]

No Tripps, read what I said, the internal calculations are correct. The enclyopedia I did not work on. It could be against 0 angle plate, or just posted by the testing of that country, not taking into effect the differences in the definition of penetration, or the type of armour plate fired against. I do not know. Maybe someone from 1C can answer that. The encylopedia is nothing more then a table listed for that vehicle, the same way the values in CMX1 when you hit enter were just a listing, not the formula that was used in that game.

Dude, exactly. Using HE instead of ap rounds? Is something hull down? What are the ranges and how was that determined? What part of the tank was hit? ETc Etc Etc. Since you did not have issues, and the game uses the same tables, draw your own conclusions.

Rune

[Tripps]

Rune, I heard what you said, the in game calculations are correct, fine (others can debate that, i've read enough of your posts over the years to give you a large benefit of the doubt).

And again, you say you didnt work on the encylopedia (i called it "in game data" above, maybe thats why its confusing) - so I get all that, but i'm getting the impression from this thread that it seems there are discrephrencies between those two items, and maybe some rather large ones - thats what i find disturbing.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

SirReal,

Actually they could both be incorrect.

Billybob,

Maybe it's because your tactics suck. I have had no problems whatsoever. In fact I just finished the Whittman scenario during which with three surrounded tigers, I dispatched about 15-20 tanks with no loss. We get your point, you've made it about 45 times already.

Tell you what, run a test for us and show, with pics and diagrams using a mission designed to test this "flaw", that T-34s and Shermans get teh best of Tigers and Panthers "on an alarming basis". Actually, don't bother, I'll do it myself. Expect me back to completely refute you in a couple of hours.

There's nothing wrong with my tactics. They work perfectly in CM, as they should, because that game (simulation) is highly realistic. The same tactics don't work in ToW because a) there's no cover & concealment, due to transparent trees and bushes etc, and because the hit ability and armor & cannon calculations are bent (either due to deliberate bias by the devs, or because the computer AI blatantly 'cheats'. Once I've played the allies a few times I'll be more sure exactly which of those it is).

I played the Villers Bocage battle two times, as a German. On the second go my three Tigers took out all the Cromwells. Two of my Tigers were then taken out by the armoured cars. Yeah. The third one was then taken under fire by the 85mm AT gun, but I was unable to return fire because of "no clear line of sight". I moved it forward in stages, maintaining a good angle, trying to get a clear shot (at the gun that had no problem getting a clear shot at me) until the gun finally took me out with an angled shot through the glacis.

And that's been my predominant experience with the Tiger (and Panther)...at ranges that favour it's optics and cannon it gets taken under fire but is unable to return fire due to "no clear line of sight". Maybe we shouldn't call the trees and bushes "invisible" or "transparent", maybe we should call them "one-way mirrors".

When the same tactics that work in CM also work in ToW, and when the "one-way mirror" trees and bushes are fixed, I'll call ToW a viable game. Until then it'll remain an arcade turd.

[rune]

Tripps,

Yep, misunderstood you. Again, I'll see if Moon can have one of the devs from 1C answer it. I am guessing they went with the reports from each country. Some are 0 degree angle, some against different types of armour, etc. It is why the first thing I checked was the values, and I asked John to review so I had a peer review. [Not that in any way I know as much as John, I'll still swear some of the penetration stuff is black magic.] So we basically put all the figures to the same standard. 30 degree plate, different ammos, and range in meters. Add in plate type, and we had the real comparable numbers. If you would like, I can send you the documentation, drop me an email if you would like. I should cut and paste his definition of ammo types, good reading for those who do NOT know the differences, and a good brush up for the old grogs.

Rune

[ChrisND]

Here the test goes:

Here is the general set up, although the ranges were more varied:

And here is the data. I only did Sherman 75mm and 76mm, vs Panther and Tiger. Not the most complete, but I have be at the lab and work.

This is to the right of last page, same rows.

Results? Exactly what I expected.

[ April 30, 2007, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Normal Dude ]

[ChrisND]

Hey Rune I would love to read that, sounds like a good read!

BillyBob,

Friend, therein lies your problem. You are playing as if it were CM. It ain't. And I played that way at first and got my ass handed to me, until I adapted. If you want this to be CM with prettier graphics, it is never going to happen, wasn't ever intended to be that, and doesn't even try to. Sorry to tell ya.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Hey Rune I would love to read that, sounds like a good read!

BillyBob,

Friend, therein lies your problem. You are playing as if it were CM. It ain't. And I played that way at first and got my ass handed to me, until I adapted. If you want this to be CM with prettier graphics, it is never going to happen, wasn't ever intended to be that, and doesn't even try to. Sorry to tell ya.

So what you're saying is this game was never meant or intended to be realistic, and I should play it like any other arcade kiddie-click-fest? Eg, with absolutely no reference to reality? :eek:

If that's what kind of game it is, what the HELL are BFC doing publishing it?! To me BFC are synonymous with highly realistic battlefield simulations, not arcade dreck.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Re your test, which side did you play from when running it? Nice work by the way.

[ April 30, 2007, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: BillyBob ]

[chanss]

Originally posted by BillyBob:

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

[qb]

Er...so why are T34s (and Shermans: see thread, 'Shermans, panthers & Tigers) getting the best of Tigers and Panthers on an alarmingly regular basis? You can post all the technical flummery in the world, but the in-game experience vis-a-vis real-world accounts from the people who were there speak for themselves: "something stinks".

And that's on top of the invisible trees and bushes etc. </font>

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by chanss:

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

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

[qb]

Er...so why are T34s (and Shermans: see thread, 'Shermans, panthers & Tigers) getting the best of Tigers and Panthers on an alarmingly regular basis? You can post all the technical flummery in the world, but the in-game experience vis-a-vis real-world accounts from the people who were there speak for themselves: "something stinks".

And that's on top of the invisible trees and bushes etc. </font>

[ChrisND]

Thanks Bob,

I really think that you and some others decieved yourselves about some things. Plain and simple.

Althoug I am starting to get tired of all the absolutes being thrown around here. It's not either a ultra-realistic sim or a kiddie arcade click fest. There's no either/or.

The tanks were played from both sides, and I found the results to be almost identical (I used Veteran level, with anything lower expect it slanted to player's favor).

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Thanks Bob,

I really think that you and some others decieved yourselves about some things. Plain and simple.

Althoug I am starting to get tired of all the absolutes being thrown around here. It's not either a ultra-realistic sim or a kiddie arcade click fest. There's no either/or.

The tanks were played from both sides, and I found the results to be almost identical (I used Veteran level, with anything lower expect it slanted to player's favor).

Interesting. I say interesting, because the results of your tests don't seem to tally with various peoples' in-game experiences. More than that however, I would expect both Panthers and Tigers to get one-shot kills almost every time against the frontal armor presented by the Sherman hull (assuming that the gunners got their first shots off at least as quickly as the Sherman chaps). Allowing, of course, for mental crews that don't abandon their Sherman the second it gets such a round punched through it, regardless of whether it's a critical penetration or not.

Might it be possible that under actual battle conditions the CPU is being overloaded to a point where serious anomolies are creeping in?

I'm going to run the Falaise mission, from both sides, and see what I get.

[rune]

Dude,

Same thing, toss me an email and I will send it to you.

Rune

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by BillyBob:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Thanks Bob,

I really think that you and some others decieved yourselves about some things. Plain and simple.

Althoug I am starting to get tired of all the absolutes being thrown around here. It's not either a ultra-realistic sim or a kiddie arcade click fest. There's no either/or.

The tanks were played from both sides, and I found the results to be almost identical (I used Veteran level, with anything lower expect it slanted to player's favor).

Interesting. I say interesting, because the results of your tests don't seem to tally with various peoples' in-game experiences. More than that however, I would expect both Panthers and Tigers to get one-shot kills almost every time against the frontal armor presented by the Sherman hull (assuming that the gunners got their first shots off at least as quickly as the Sherman chaps). Allowing, of course, for mental crews that don't abandon their Sherman the second it gets such a round punched through it, regardless of whether it's a critical penetration or not.

Might it be possible that under actual battle conditions the CPU is being overloaded to a point where serious anomolies are creeping in?

I'm going to run the Falaise mission, from both sides, and see what I get. </font>The test is under very controlled and strict conditions, the very antithesis of battle. What people are seeing in-game is the result of the immediate situation that is caused vehicle placement, ammo loads, spotting, crews, etc etc etc. I would venture to say that most often it's how they are using their vehicles, and the relative experiences of the crews involved.