WWII German Ballistic Penetration Criteria

[Mobius]

I go slowly mental trying to explain the issues of modelling the effects based on shaky, guesswork measurements, anecdotal evidence and poorly-understood mechanics to the computer gaming world. I swear it has made me take up drinking. No, come to think of it, I already liked whisky

That' s because you try to nail it down to a simple number. Sort of the way the over-engineered CM does it. If you spead the net wider using probability you can allow for some inaccuracy and FoW at the same time.

 

I made a chart comparing the 3 different shell specs and the two early shells could be the same shell. Some minor changes in versions. One wierd thing is the US manual shows different cross-sections of the explosive chambers.

Edited May 19, 2007 by Mobius

[jwduquette1]

Jeff,

 

Belatedly joining the postings here - but I think I'll wrap that quote around a large bat and use it to drum the issues into people's heads. I go slowly mental trying to explain the issues of modelling the effects based on shaky, guesswork measurements, anecdotal evidence and poorly-understood mechanics to the computer gaming world. I swear it has made me take up drinking. No, come to think of it, I already liked whisky

 

Hi Wilsonam:

 

Yes I agree. But what can you do? Computer gaming and computer game designers have so many threads to bring together in creating a game. They are not typically experts in all things being considered within a simulation. I think in the case of ballistic modeling, which is but one needle in a large hay stack that game designers must deal with; there is perhaps a tendency to latch onto anything that seems remotely authoritative -- be that particular "something" right or wrong.

 

Best Regards

Jeff

[wilsonam]

That' s because you try to nail it down to a simple number. Sort of the way the over-engineered CM does it. If you spead the net wider using probability you can allow for some inaccuracy and FoW at the same time.

Actually, I don't - but please don't ask me to start on about stochastic probability gibberish - it makes my head hurt. However, ultimately you have to get everything down to relative numbers - T-34 85 vs. Pz VI Ausf E and so on ad nauseam ad infinitum

 

The bit I was bitching about are those who have read a single table of "penetration values", that say "It can't happen" or "It must happen". Then trying to explain what those values are, how they were measure, on what criteria - and then the interpretation of what that means in the real world.

 

 

Hi Wilsonam:

 

Yes I agree. But what can you do? Computer gaming and computer game designers have so many threads to bring together in creating a game. They are not typically experts in all things being considered within a simulation. I think in the case of ballistic modeling, which is but one needle in a large hay stack that game designers must deal with; there is perhaps a tendency to latch onto anything that seems remotely authoritative -- be that particular "something" right or wrong.

 

Best Regards

Jeff

 

Well, I was a historian long before I was a game designer. The games design stuff came along for laughs and giggles later in life. The trick is to get it "close enough" - but you can never be close enough (let alone "right") for everyone. And latching on to an "authorative" source that covers the whole shooting match is such a lovely, simple way of getting to an answer. Unfortunately, not good enough for what we are doing at the moment - hence digging much deeper into the next layer or three of understanding. Followed by figuring out a way of modelling that within the performance constraints of a game (less of an issue these days, as compute power on the desktop gets ever greater) but also a model that people can understand, that is consistent across all possible eventualities, that people won't spend their lives trying to prove "wrong" etc etc

 

And now - back to work!

 

Cheers,

 

Alan

 

PS: If anyone can find me reliable data (and actually cares to share it), with sources quoted for any Soviet wartime (WWII) tests of German guns, using Soviet criteria - or German/US/British tests of Soviet guns (firing Soviet ammo, not rebored and firing German/US ammo) - I'd be eternally grateful. I'd still love to be able to get just a LITTLE more good comparative data!

[Mobius]

PS: If anyone can find me reliable data (and actually cares to share it), with sources quoted for any Soviet wartime (WWII) tests of German guns, using Soviet criteria - or German/US/British tests of Soviet guns (firing Soviet ammo, not rebored and firing German/US ammo) - I'd be eternally grateful. I'd still love to be able to get just a LITTLE more good comparative data!

Its right here to be found.

It's even better than that. It's independent of Soviet, US UK or German.

Check out Bojan's post on Yugoslavian tests of WWII guns.

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=18562

Edited May 20, 2007 by Mobius

[wilsonam]

Its right here to be found.

It's even better than that. It's independent of Soviet, US UK or German.

Check out Bojan's post on Yugoslavian tests of WWII guns.

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=18562

Thanks... interesting set of data. My ideal is still to find comparator data, so to speak - mostly to make my own mind up on "calibrating" the test criteria and results from the various countries in the period. Of course, this means trying to find something approaching "like-for-like" tests and test results. Hmmmm... it is giving me interesting comparative data - defo helps. Thanks

[jwduquette1]

Well, I was a historian long before I was a game designer. The games design stuff came along for laughs and giggles later in life. The trick is to get it "close enough" - but you can never be close enough (let alone "right") for everyone. And latching on to an "authorative" source that covers the whole shooting match is such a lovely, simple way of getting to an answer. Unfortunately, not good enough for what we are doing at the moment - hence digging much deeper into the next layer or three of understanding. Followed by figuring out a way of modelling that within the performance constraints of a game (less of an issue these days, as compute power on the desktop gets ever greater) but also a model that people can understand, that is consistent across all possible eventualities, that people won't spend their lives trying to prove "wrong" etc etc

 

Studying history is good and I agree that wargames are rarely good history. Some can be interesting learning tools -- but not always.

 

I think there is a fair amount of inertia built up out there based upon misunderstanding or no understanding of plate and projectile failure criteria and success criteria -- what these criteria were used for and what they are supposed to mean. This thread is a good example of the inertia built-up in some peoples minds on this aspect of armor penetration and armor protection. It's rather futile to argue such things. But as you dig deeper it becomes apparent that the Germans, Russians, British and Americans were all basically concerned with both a projectiles performance against plates and a plates performance against projectiles. Seems pretty straight forward, but while these two things sort of sound alike, they aren't. A projectiles capabilities may be expressed in terms of how much armor it can perforate at a specific velocity and obliquity, or the projectile capability may be expressed in terms of how much armor will provide complete protection against the projectile at a given velocity and given obliquity. No one was really looking at residual velocities during this period in time. The easiest means of testing was to determine how much velocity a projectile needed to just barely pass a plate or how much velocity a projectile could have and still have the plate just barely keep a projectile from pin-holing or cracking or back spalling the plate. These two concepts are not unique, nor are they confined to one particular country's modus operandi. It is at the heart of why its a waste of time to "normalize". But folks are gonna do what they're gonna do.

 

Mixing up criteria will result in folks coming away with the idea that such and such countrys data needs to be increased or decreased to put it on par with some other countrys data. The problem is usually rooted in a lack of understanding of what criteria is being detailed for a specific set of penetration data or protection data.

 

But this is something I could talk with someone about till' I'm blue in the face and it would make little impression upon preconceived notions. Some folks just need to pee on the electric fence for themselves. Telling um' it's gonna sting doesn't do much good cause' some other misinformed dude told um' with authority that it don't hurt a bit.

 

Best Regards

JD

Edited May 21, 2007 by jwduquette1

[wilsonam]

Studying history is good and I agree that wargames are rarely good history. Some can be interesting learning tools -- but not always.

 

I think there is a fair amount of inertia built up out there based upon misunderstanding or no understanding of plate and projectile failure criteria and success criteria -- what these criteria were used for and what they are supposed to mean. This thread is a good example of the inertia built-up in some peoples minds on this aspect of armor penetration and armor protection. It's rather futile to argue such things. But as you dig deeper it becomes apparent that the Germans, Russians, British and Americans were all basically concerned with both a projectiles performance against plates and a plates performance against projectiles. Seems pretty straight forward, but while these two things sort of sound alike, they aren't. A projectiles capabilities may be expressed in terms of how much armor it can perforate at a specific velocity and obliquity, or the projectile capability may be expressed in terms of how much armor will provide complete protection against the projectile at a given velocity and given obliquity. No one was really looking at residual velocities during this period in time. The easiest means of testing was to determine how much velocity a projectile needed to just barely pass a plate or how much velocity a projectile could have and still have the plate just barely keep a projectile from pin-holing or cracking or back spalling the plate. These two concepts are not unique, nor are they confined to one particular country's modus operandi. It is at the heart of why its a waste of time to "normalize". But folks are gonna do what they're gonna do.

 

Mixing up criteria will result in folks coming away with the idea that such and such countrys data needs to be increased or decreased to put it on par with some other countrys data. The problem is usually rooted in a lack of understanding of what criteria is being detailed for a specific set of penetration data or protection data.

 

But this is something I could talk with someone about till' I'm blue in the face and it would make little impression upon preconceived notions. Some folks just need to pee on the electric fence for themselves. Telling um' it's gonna sting doesn't do much good cause' some other misinformed dude told um' with authority that it don't hurt a bit.

 

Best Regards

JD

Well, I enjoy studying history But the same problem applies to the history of WWII as it does to the detail of armour penetration: people want a simple, exact answer - and, by and large, you can't have it in either case. My wife has just been churning round on the topic of appeasement, yet more new bits of data coming out of the archives - and the views shift again. Some people, who's minds are already made up, are quite determined to look at the next bit of new material and either find a way to squeeze it into their own pet theory, or to discredit it because it won't fit. But I could get onto a major rant here In just the same fashion, armour isn't an "exact science", with simple answers: you can work up equations that fit the experimental data well, in a given set of circumstances - assuming you can even get people to agree on the experimental data

 

The equivalent in game terms tends to be "But you can't shoot a Tiger with XXX gun... and the Tiger can kill anything at any range evuh...". But I'm in danger of taking the thread wayyyyy off track here - and I expect you guys have been round these "debates" more than enough times

[Djuice]

How accurate is this website for WWII Ballistic penetration?

 

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

[JWB]

How accurate is this website for WWII Ballistic penetration?

 

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

AFAIK it is very good. Honner joined several years ago to get advice when he revamped that site. Haven't heard much from him since. Or maybe I have.

[Mobius]

How accurate is this website for WWII Ballistic penetration?

 

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

Except for having the same mistake as the Russian Battlefield the Zis-3 is not 76.2mm/L51.6.

That is the F-22

[Guest bojan]

Except for having the same mistake as the Russian Battlefield the Zis-3 is not 76.2mm/L51.6.

That is the F-22

 

It is extremely common mistake, expecialy since ZiS-3 looks sleek and long. But if anyone seen ZiS-3 next to PaK40 (L/48) or F-22 (L/51) there can be no doubt that it is L/41...

[jwduquette1]

Well, I enjoy studying history But the same problem applies to the history of WWII as it does to the detail of armour penetration: people want a simple, exact answer - and, by and large, you can't have it in either case. My wife has just been churning round on the topic of appeasement, yet more new bits of data coming out of the archives - and the views shift again. Some people, who's minds are already made up, are quite determined to look at the next bit of new material and either find a way to squeeze it into their own pet theory, or to discredit it because it won't fit. But I could get onto a major rant here In just the same fashion, armour isn't an "exact science", with simple answers: you can work up equations that fit the experimental data well, in a given set of circumstances - assuming you can even get people to agree on the experimental data

 

The equivalent in game terms tends to be "But you can't shoot a Tiger with XXX gun... and the Tiger can kill anything at any range evuh...". But I'm in danger of taking the thread wayyyyy off track here - and I expect you guys have been round these "debates" more than enough times

 

I’ve always been pretty guilty of meandering away from a threads particular topic. I suppose dragging slope effects into this topic makes me guilty of going off topic. I think Steve's (aka Mobius) original intent was to focus upon German penetration data and how to normalize things to a common and level playing field. But to be fair to me my intent of bringing slope effects into the disscussion was me simply trying to bump the discussion into talking about error sources and how much various error sources contribute to the problem at hand. Big error sources vs. small error sources. Be that as it may.

 

I for one would be interested in what new materials have surfaced regarding appeasement. I assume you mean Neville Chamberlin and Czechoslovakia. I’d be interested if this is focused upon pre-WWII, and not a means of dragging modern politics into this particular thread meander.

Edited May 27, 2007 by jwduquette1

[Mobius]

I think Steve's (aka Mobius) original was to focus upon German penetration data and how to normalize things to a common and level playing field.

I still haven't resolved the 88mm question yet. I'm still buying books trying to pin it down.

 

With my game system I don't have to have the data too exact. (Not within 30fps.) To get reasonable results I only need it +/- 1cm within 200m range.

As Jeff found in some testing of computer models even some of the best formulas give about +/- 7-8% accuracy. And then there are some anomalies way outside this range.

[jwduquette1]

How accurate is this website for WWII Ballistic penetration?

 

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

 

I used to chat with Honner via email a number of years back, although I suspect he wouldn't recall me from Adam. Perhaps "chat" is a misnomer -- I used to bombard him with questions. Seems like a real good fellow -- at least from his emails. Always tried to answer my questions and was always forthright about saying "I don't know" if he didn’t know the answer to one of my more esoteric ramblings.

 

I think Honner did a very nice job of collating a large amount of information that is spread out through many mass consumption sources. By mass consumption, I mean sources like Jentz or Chamberlain, etc etc etc.

 

I first came across his website perhaps ten or twelve years ago(?). I became interested in armor penetration data while playing an old Atomic computer game called Close Combat. I printed out a fair number of Honner’s old web site from way back when and have this stuff stowed in a three ring binder somewheres’. Of course a great deal of new information has surfaced since than. Dunno if the site reflects all of the stuff that has surfaced over the past ten years or not.

 

I thought Honner had lost interest in the sites up-keep a long time ago, and someone else saved all the info in its original html format. Moreover, Honner’s web site disappeared from the net for a number of years. I started coming across his site again maybe a year or so ago. But I didn't think Honner was still directly involved with it. Sort of like it's current incarnation is an old mirror or copy of the original site. I don't know this for certain -- this is just my guess.

 

Best Regards

JD

[jwduquette1]

Sorry -- was just paroozing Honner's old site and saw this bit at the bottom of one of the pages:

 

Copyright © 1999 David Michael Honner. E-mail: GvA@wargamer.org. Last modified 27 May 2020.

 

Apparently the current web master has come back from the future after a significant web site revamp. The information contained is current up through 2020.

Edited May 27, 2007 by jwduquette1

[wilsonam]

I for one would be interested in what new materials have surfaced regarding appeasement. I assume you mean Neville Chamberlin and Czechoslovakia. I’d be interested if this is focused upon pre-WWII, and not a means of dragging modern politics into this particular thread meander.

I'll ask the wife if she would care to share And, yes, around the whole period from about 1936-1939. She was working in the PRO at Kew, mostly for new/untapped sources. And no - nothing to do with modern politics

 

As to David Honner - no idea if he put the site back up or, as you say, someone simply grabbed the html and slapped it up. Like many, I have a habit of grabbing whole websites that are of interest, in case they vanish again - as Russian ones have a habit of doing! I was very glad I had grabbed it when it vanished. As an aside, I'm also slowly turning over odd bits of data and reading materials in the archives at Bovington. Just bits and pieces... adding as much confusion as they clear up, of course

[Mobius]

Sorry -- was just paroozing Honner's old site and say this bit at the bottom of one of the pages:

 

Copyright © 1999 David Michael Honner. E-mail: GvA@wargamer.org. Last modified 27 May 2020.

 

Apparently the current web master has come back from the future after a significant web site revamp. The information contained is current up through 2020.

I too had printed off numerous pages from the old site. It was and still is a wierd site as it is really difficult to get entire pages as there are auto paging or refreshing or something going on there.

[jwduquette1]

I too had printed off numerous pages from the old site. It was and still is a wierd site as it is really difficult to get entire pages as there are auto paging or refreshing or something going on there.

 

yup -- its present incarnation is a little odd in that it seems to jump about a bit. but it seems to work fine once you get used to the weirdo double take thing the various pages seem to do upon opening. most of the stuff looks like David's old web page. which is a good thing. Honner did a nice job putting the site togeather -- the format and its overall appearance are good.

[jwduquette1]

I'll ask the wife if she would care to share And, yes, around the whole period from about 1936-1939. She was working in the PRO at Kew, mostly for new/untapped sources. And no - nothing to do with modern politics

 

Speaking of the PRO at Kew (and speaking of going off topic yet again), I wish my own countries NARA would have a look at the way in which PRO is making materials available to the public (the public meaning me). The online document catalogue of the PRO combined with the ease with which copies of materials can be purchased from PRO is a model of archival efficiency.

 

On the other hand, communicating with NARA seems to be is a hit or miss thing -- dependent upon the archivist a request happens to find. Or at least that's been my experience. A bureaucratic boondoggle. It is infinitely simpler for me to obtain copies of archival materials from the United Kingdom than it is for me to obtain materials from my own NARA.

[wilsonam]

Speaking of the PRO at Kew (and speaking of going off topic yet again), I wish my own countries NARA would have a look at the way in which PRO is making materials available to the public (the public meaning me). The online document catalogue of the PRO combined with the ease with which copies of materials can be purchased from PRO is a model of archival efficiency.

 

On the other hand, communicating with NARA seems to be is a hit or miss thing -- dependent upon the archivist a request happens to find. Or at least that's been my experience. A bureaucratic boondoggle. It is infinitely simpler for me to obtain copies of archival materials from the United Kingdom than it is for me to obtain materials from my own NARA.

Agreed - I find the searchability at NARA to be dire in comparison to the PRO. But I tend to use the RAC Tank Museum archive a lot more, for obvious reasons - and that is a purely manual effort

[L.V.]

It seems that there has been some controversy over the different constructions of APCBC used with the 88 mm L/56 guns. I have been able to find out only two main types: the one with the smaller cavity (8,8 cm Pzgr. 39, 39-1 and 39/43) and the one with the larger cavity (8,8 cm Pzgr. mit Bodenzünder). It may be confusing that the part "mit Bodenzünder" of the designation is sometimes left out. The smaller cavity holds 59 grams of phlegmatized RDX and the larger one holds 168 grams of explosives consisting of 134 g of phlegmatized TNT and 34 g of phlegmatized PETN. It appears however, that some of the 8,8 cm Pzgr. shells may have had amatol fillers instead of TNT/PETN. The Merkblatts of the 8,8 cm Flak L/56 and 8,8 cm KwK L/56 know only the following types of APCBC: 8,8 cm Panzergranate mit Bodenzünder and 8,8 cm Panzergranate 39. The 8,8 cm Flak L/56 fired both types and the 8,8 cm KwK 36 only Pzgr. 39. I can post images of the Munitionsmerkblatts as soon as I get the attachment settings right.

[jwduquette1]

It seems that there has been some controversy over the different constructions of APCBC used with the 88 mm L/56 guns. I have been able to find out only two main types: the one with the smaller cavity (8,8 cm Pzgr. 39, 39-1 and 39/43) and the one with the larger cavity (8,8 cm Pzgr. mit Bodenzünder). It may be confusing that the part "mit Bodenzünder" of the designation is sometimes left out. The smaller cavity holds 59 grams of phlegmatized RDX and the larger one holds 168 grams of explosives consisting of 134 g of phlegmatized TNT and 34 g of phlegmatized PETN. It appears however, that some of the 8,8 cm Pzgr. shells may have had amatol fillers instead of TNT/PETN. The Merkblatts of the 8,8 cm Flak L/56 and 8,8 cm KwK L/56 know only the following types of APCBC: 8,8 cm Panzergranate mit Bodenzünder and 8,8 cm Panzergranate 39. The 8,8 cm Flak L/56 fired both types and the 8,8 cm KwK 36 only Pzgr. 39. I can post images of the Munitionsmerkblatts as soon as I get the attachment settings right.

 

Agreed. But I think there is a bit more to the question than simple identification of projectiles and what fired what. Although this is part of the problem with some of the postings to this thread. Starting from the basics and detailing what fired what is probably a good way to go with this particular thread.

 

But this ultimately also needs to be tied to penetration\perforation data for specific projectiles. There is a question in some peoples mind regarding penetration data, and what penetration data is applicable to which projectile and why one "seemingly" sees contrasts between what the Allies were reporting for various 88mm projectiles and what the Germans were reporting for various 88mm projectile. I would have to look through this whole mess again -- which doesn't sound too appealing -- But if I am remembering right I think Steve -- aka Mobius -- was trying to make a case via the differences between Allied and German penetration data for 8,8cm pzgr that all German penetration data needs to be bumped upward to be on par with Allied penetration data -- or something to that effect. Note the Merkblatt (should be dattenblatte) penetration data for both the 8,8 cm Flak L/56 and 8,8 cm KwK L/56. Mixing up 8,8cm pzgr penetration data with 8,8 cm Panzergranate 39 penetration data is perhaps at the heart of the confusion here.

 

EDIT: Sorry -- My Bad. I refered to the Merkblatte penetration data above and should have said Dattenblatte penetration data.

Edited October 30, 2007 by jwduquette1

[L.V.]

But if I am remembering right I think Steve -- aka Mobius -- was trying to make a case via the differences between Allied and German penetration data for 8,8cm pzgr that all German penetration data needs to be bumped upward to be on par with Allied penetration data -- or something to that effect. Note the Merkblatt penetration data for both the 8,8 cm Flak L/56 and 8,8 cm KwK L/56. Mixing up 8,8cm pzgr penetration data with 8,8 cm Panzergranate 39 penetration data is perhaps at the heart of the confusion here.

 

Where can the German pen. data be found, except for the Datenblatts? The 88 L/56 Flak and KwK Merkblatts (H.dv. 481/541 and 481/60) don't mention any penetration data.

[jwduquette1]

Where can the German pen. data be found, except for the Datenblatts? The 88 L/56 Flak and KwK Merkblatts (H.dv. 481/541 and 481/60) don't mention any penetration data.

 

Hi LV:

 

No, none of the Merkblatt's detail penetration -- at least none that I have looked at. German Penetration data can of course be found in other sources ala ballistic trial reports or manufacturing documents, but that is another subject.

 

The Datenblatte Data is fine for our purposes, and is in fact what is being compared to Allied data. Moreover Jentz and the like are invariably drawing their information directly from Dattenblatte for the 88mm or 75mm or whatever -- at least it looks to me like Jentz is copying this information verbatim from a weapons Dattenblatte.

 

My point is simply that clarifying for some folks what 88mm guns fired what projectiles is of course important to this thread in the sense that there is confusion on what is doing what, and what could fire what. But the other aspect of the thread regards German penetration testing criteria. To that end I have detailed already what is implied by GS and GD limits. I have also compared an example of how GD limit velocity is determined with how the same data would be utilized to determine Navy Limit velocity and shown the two methods for determining limit velocity result in relatively similar results.

 

Regards

Jeff

[wilsonam]

Talking to the guys at Bovington, Tom Jentz is always very careful to simply quote data from source, rather than offer interpretations on any of it - although far too many people end up taking a single line of Jentz's as all-encompassing for each gun - one small table in a book on the Tiger then is applied to all 88mm guns firing "AP"!

 

Oh - and any Datenblatte data always gratefully received

 

Cheers,

 

Alan