Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Post Reply
Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#271

Post by Christianmunich » 05 Jan 2019, 17:47

critical mass wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 17:42

MK,
You might want to modify the words of Your response, considering that Avalancheon referred only to the "front" of tank and Your response does, as far as I recognize, also cover (mainly) hits from the flanks (without pointing out this subtle but important difference).
The actual penetration rate on the front in this sample was 25%. 8.3% of those were through the MG port. 12 hits, three penetrations one through the MG port two through the armour. None through the glacis and two through the Turret front, sadly not specified further.

Obviously sampling biased of abandoned German tanks yadda yadda.

Interesting side note on the hit percentages. Only 20% of the hits on the Panthers were frontal. This is significantly lower compared to many other samples of tanks. If you want to lay this out in favour of the Panther you could argue the Allied soldiers were already adapting by trying to hit the flank thereby reducing their effectiveness and also avoiding frontal shoots even in case of opportunity.

A US sample of Panzer V and VI, which is obviously a weird sample, had a more normal hit distribution with about 30% on the front. In this sample "only" 57% penetrated.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#272

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Jan 2019, 19:52

critical mass wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 17:42


MK,
You might want to modify the words of Your response, considering that Avalancheon referred only to the "front" of tank and Your response does, as far as I recognize, also cover (mainly) hits from the flanks (without pointing out this subtle but important difference).
My statement is factually correct. The wording is concise and unambiguous. It says what it says and until such time as someone points out that it does not mean what I take it to mean then it stands. Do you dispute the finding that 75% of the hits counted on those Panthers penetrated ?
I am really not interested in trying to mitigate this rather damning indictment of the battlefield survivability of the panther though I recognise that some dedicate their lives to this chimera.


Steve Wilcox
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:39
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#273

Post by Steve Wilcox » 05 Jan 2019, 20:56

How is it damning? It compares favorably to the sample of Shermans they used, 95% of which were penetrated by hits. A 25% chance of bouncing a hit looks pretty good compared to a 5% chance!

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#274

Post by Christianmunich » 05 Jan 2019, 21:28

Michael Kenny wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 19:52
critical mass wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 17:42


MK,
You might want to modify the words of Your response, considering that Avalancheon referred only to the "front" of tank and Your response does, as far as I recognize, also cover (mainly) hits from the flanks (without pointing out this subtle but important difference).
My statement is factually correct. The wording is concise and unambiguous. It says what it says and until such time as someone points out that it does not mean what I take it to mean then it stands. Do you dispute the finding that 75% of the hits counted on those Panthers penetrated ?
I am really not interested in trying to mitigate this rather damning indictment of the battlefield survivability of the panther though I recognise that some dedicate their lives to this chimera.
Your statement is actually not factually correct here is your statement again:
75% of all hits on a Panther penetrated.
At no point do you mention that a single sample of Panthers is used for this claim. You cited a limited sample that was biased as even mentioned by the authors and implied this is normal for "a Panther". The term "a Panther" defines that you are talking about an average Panther your claim is therefore not factually correct. It is actually quite incorrect.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#275

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Jan 2019, 22:00

Christianmunich wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 21:28


Your statement is actually not factually correct

It is.

Christianmunich wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 21:28
At no point do you mention that a .......whinge .............whinge..........whine .

Nothing changes the fact that 75% of the hits on a Panther penetrated.

Have a good cry and move on old boy.

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#276

Post by Christianmunich » 05 Jan 2019, 22:08

Michael Kenny wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 22:00

Nothing changes the fact that 75% of the hits on a Panther penetrated.

Have a good cry and move on old boy.
Actually, your statement is not correct. You claimed 75% of hits "on a Panther" penetrated. This claim is not correct, you are merely talking about a specific sample which you did not mention. Please provide us proof that 75% of hits on average Panthers penetrated the tank.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#277

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Jan 2019, 22:17

Christianmunich wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 22:08
[

Actually, your statement is not correct. You claimed 75% of hits "on a Panther" penetrated. This claim is not correct,

Note to readers-he is now going to start an argument over grammar in order to save face.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#278

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Jan 2019, 22:19

Steve Wilcox wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 20:56
How is it damning? It compares favorably to the sample of Shermans they used, 95% of which were penetrated by hits. A 25% chance of bouncing a hit looks pretty good compared to a 5% chance!
viewtopic.php?p=2157613#p2157613

Christianmunich
Banned
Posts: 801
Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
Location: Germany

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#279

Post by Christianmunich » 05 Jan 2019, 22:21

Michael Kenny wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 22:17
Christianmunich wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 22:08
[

Actually, your statement is not correct. You claimed 75% of hits "on a Panther" penetrated. This claim is not correct,

Note to readers-he is now going to start an argument over grammar in order to save face.
Uhm you said your 5-word sentence is not ambiguous and correct. That is false now you are upset people point it out.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#280

Post by Michael Kenny » 05 Jan 2019, 22:45

Christianmunich wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 22:21


Uhm you said your 5-word sentence is not ambiguous and correct. That is false now you are upset people point it out.
You say too-may-toe I say tom-at-oo

j keenan
Financial supporter
Posts: 1575
Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 12:22
Location: North

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#281

Post by j keenan » 06 Jan 2019, 01:01

Michael Kenny wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 22:45
Christianmunich wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 22:21


Uhm you said your 5-word sentence is not ambiguous and correct. That is false now you are upset people point it out.
You say too-may-toe I say tom-at-oo
:lol:

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#282

Post by Stiltzkin » 06 Jan 2019, 03:13

What am I missing here?
Suspension? Perhaps the shear stress, shear displacement relationship, sinkage parameters (to assess repetitive loading) and tracklink efficiency, steering ratio or overall MI (mobility index)? Q-factor (MMP/NGP quotient, Sherman variants have a higher value, this is also the case for Soviet designs, a lower value points towards a more efficient design, according to Rowland)? Mobility is not an one dimensional term, some vehicles will perform better in a different environment, but MMP is considered to be a useful universal indicator. I have footage of a Tiger I dashing through terrain, it was quite the agile tank for its size.
The one significant advantage the Cromwell has over all other is power to weight ratio,
Note that Ogorkiewicz states that treating power to weight ratios as absolutes can be misleading, the impacts are felt at values <10 Ps/t and >17-21 Ps/t respectively. The Sherman is particularly front heavy and the assembly/layout , just as the size of the wheel drive, affect traction and step climbing ability. The Cromwell was designed to operate in a more urbanized area, perhaps that might explain the track design.
Nothing changes the fact that 75% of the hits on a Panther penetrated.
I think that is called, desperation.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#283

Post by Michael Kenny » 06 Jan 2019, 10:46

Stiltzkin wrote:
06 Jan 2019, 03:13
Nothing changes the fact that 75% of the hits on a Panther penetrated.
I think that is called, desperation.
I think its great that all those who use the Sherman survey that said 95% of hits penetrated now have to deal with the same people who did the same type of survey on the Panther and found that 75% of hits on a Panther penetrated.

Yes you read that correctly. 75% of hits on a Panther penetrated.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#284

Post by Don Juan » 06 Jan 2019, 14:51

Avalancheon wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 07:05
Of course if the Panthers were used in this way, then they would get worn out quickly. But if they were driven properly by a trained German crew (not by a bunch of French morons), then they could potentially go much further. By regulation, the tanks only required a major overhaul every 800 km or so, and some Panthers drove much further than this before their final drives broke.
You see, this is the problem with interacting with people who have no idea what they are talking about. 800km is an abysmal distance between overhauls. The Cromwell (as well as the Comet, A30 Challenger and Centurion) was developed to a 5000km (3000 mile) minimum overhaul life.

But thanks for the data point!
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )

#285

Post by critical mass » 06 Jan 2019, 16:13

Michael Kenny wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 19:52
critical mass wrote:
05 Jan 2019, 17:42


MK,
You might want to modify the words of Your response, considering that Avalancheon referred only to the "front" of tank and Your response does, as far as I recognize, also cover (mainly) hits from the flanks (without pointing out this subtle but important difference).
My statement is factually correct. The wording is concise and unambiguous. It says what it says and until such time as someone points out that it does not mean what I take it to mean then it stands.
I am not convinced. As pointed out previously, not the statement You made is under doubt but the fact that You accidentally or intentionally omitted a very important point by not stressing that the 75% figure You cited in critique of Avalancheon statement refers to a sample which is not related to front hits, which was, as I understood, the point Avalancheon raised in the first place. Thus, You handling of factual data is fraud by false attribution, in which an important passage for understanding is removed and may cause a change of the meaning. I was trained to understand this as a misrepresentation of handling with primary sources (contextomies), and for the record, I also train my students and collegues to be sensitive against this sort of error in their handling of primary source data.

I have identified another misrepresentation here:
The 1945 'Post Rhine Crossing' survey of UK tank casualties is much more detailed and found 148 AP penetrations in 135 tanks and 119 'scoops/deflections'. That is a 40% failure/scoop rate. I suspect this is because the 1945 survey far more detailed than anything the OR Teams ever did.
Tables 3 & 4 (pgs 17-18) of WO205/1165 'A Survey Of Tank Casualties Amongst Armoured Units In North West Europe 1945
The problem here lies in the implicit presumption behind Your interpretation of what actually constitutes a "failure" or "scoop". The data tabulations of WO205/1165 are taken rather unreflected, with the implicit presumption that a "scoop" actually means that a projectile physically ricochetted off an armor plate. I have studied this (very interesting) sample and found this presumption is not supported by the details of the hit descriptions and thus cannot be regarded as a valid presumption. A "scoop" in WO205/1165 is virtually anything, and frequently, will not involve touching the principal hull armor in the first place (f.e. a penetration through an opened hatch, which never had a chance to physically contact any hull armor or, oblique penetrations of a road wheel with the projectile behind went under the belly, again without making physical contact with the hull armor).
The vast majority of clean hits on exposed hull or turret surfaces penetrated. The ratio is not dissimilar to the Normandy sample, in both cases, approx. 3/4 of the front turret/hull hits penetrated. "Scoops" on the other hand are overrepresented only in two major areas: Appandages (mind the aforementioned caveates) and the area- (not exactly the side hull) of the running gear. Much less frequently so, also in the copula, main gun, front bottom plate and roof plates (caused, as an educated guess, by extreme oblique effects). This is a very detailed sample and much can be learned from it (compare attachment).
Interesting side note on the hit percentages. Only 20% of the hits on the Panthers were frontal. This is significantly lower compared to many other samples of tanks. If you want to lay this out in favour of the Panther you could argue the Allied soldiers were already adapting by trying to hit the flank thereby reducing their effectiveness and also avoiding frontal shoots even in case of opportunity.
Christianmunich, I don´t hink this can be readily stated. The sample was only from AFV, which were knocked out and could not be recovered. AFV, which were hit but could be recovered will not be inside the sample. Thus, the sample is expected to be biased in disfavour of areas, where we know that a lot of hits were rejected, for example, that 3/4 of the front hits (75%) failed to damage the tank in the presented sample and biased in favour of flank hits, which will lead more readily to a result involving the AFV beeing made part of this sample. It´s rather not a representation of actual hit area frequencies -or, for that matter, penetration percentages- but for the dispositional pattern of hits related to unrecovered AFV.
Mind, the most common source for AFV write offs are operational causes for the defender, and likely the attacker, too. More research is necessary here to understand all the principles involved, but my feeling is that armor (or lack thereoff) is a significant, but neither a decisive nor irreplacable factor. I state this, rather sceptical perception in full confidence of years of study in armor-projectile dynamics. Of course, this does not refer only to the Panthers discussed, and one has to point out that this goes both ways in the Normandy sample (95% of hits on Sherman penetrated in the same operational sample). An unbiased sample would involve all AFV damage from a certain operation and/or time period.

hope it helps,
cm
Attachments
1945_hit study_fig12.jpg
1945_hit study_fig12.jpg (32.88 KiB) Viewed 1038 times
Last edited by critical mass on 06 Jan 2019, 16:44, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”