You don't have to be. The report is there it shows 75% of hits on a Panther penetrated. Opinions about the facts can differ but the facts stay the same.
Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 06 Jan 2019, 16:39, edited 3 times in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
- Location: central Europe
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
DonJ,Don Juan wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 14:51You 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.Avalancheon wrote: ↑05 Jan 2019, 07:05Of 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.
But thanks for the data point!
when judging mileages, one might interfere that the Comet, A30 and Cromwell are all very late ww2 AFV and benefitted from extensive post ww2 service (with all improvements that caused), intruduced considerably later than the PANTHER. The CENTURION is a post war serving AFV, entirely.
According to Coombs, British tank production and the War Economy 1934-1945 (London/New York 2013), p.90 (for what´s worth), these mileages were not obtainable midwar:
average mls before major drive train breakdown / replacement of engine under british environmental conditions:
CRUSADER 1942: 400mls
VALENTINE 1942: 950mls
CHURCHILL 1942: 500mls
MATHILDA II 1942: 800mls
COVENANTER 1942: 600mls
Perhaps Your data shows how much the average overhaul times improved late ww2/post ww2? At least the Cromwell sent to the US seems not to have been fit to 5000km, yet, if I understand the report correctly.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
- Location: Germany
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
I am fully aware I have stated exactly this several times already when Kenny or others brought up the sample.critical mass wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 16:13
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.
hope it helps,
cm
Kenny is fully aware of this I have also told him exactly this. I wanna show you guys a "scoop/nonpenetration".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).
There is also a "scoop" that cut of the entire barrel. Scoops is every projectile that touched the vehicle.
I have studied the sample and are close to finishing my research on this one. It is exactly like you said, the vast majority of hits that could penetrate did penetrate. Real "withstood" hits are extremely rare. Most "scoops" are indeed glancing blows or hits into the running gear.
To be fair I am kinda upset that you came to the same conclusions. Since most historians have only used this sample to show low "casualties", which are interesting enough due to high rate of first hit abandonment, I thought I am the first to properly examine the sample.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Real "withstood" hits? Oh I get it, you are inventing a special category ' so you can randomly attribute all 'scoops' as fake ''withstood'' hits'.Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 17:32Real "withstood" hits are extremely rare. Most "scoops" are indeed glancing blows or hits into the running gear.
Now that is funny Grasshopper. . I remember when I had to explain to you how to read the drawings that show the various types of tanks and the hits. You had no idea at all how it worked!
-
- Banned
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
- Location: Germany
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Michael Kenny wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 18:35Real "withstood" hits? Oh I get it, you are inventing a special category ' so you can randomly attribute all 'scoops' as fake ''withstood'' hits'.Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 17:32Real "withstood" hits are extremely rare. Most "scoops" are indeed glancing blows or hits into the running gear.
Now that is funny Grasshopper. . I remember when I had to explain to you how to read the drawings that show the various types of tanks and the hits. You had no idea at all how it worked!
Screensghthot_12.jpg
What about this is funny, there are dozens of my posts on Reddit saying that I just saw the sample for the first time, a couple months back. Now I have researched it, and it is devastating and also unsurprisingly shows that all the historians who used it have not drawn proper conclusions.
The actual fun part is that you told me that there exists a sample where 35% of the hits didn't penetrate and then I looked at it and found you are again butchering data because that is what you do.
As Critical Mass said and I before the sample shows that all glancing blows et cetera were counted as non penetrating hits, even those just hitting the barrel and other areas where nothing to penetrate was. You have known this and manipulated the data set, hat is why you call this a "special category".
As Critical Mass said in an unnecessary polite way, your argumentation is based on exploiting the lacking knowledge of passive readers, you withhold data and manipulate data. He expressed it more nicely but that is the gist of it.
The next thing will be my masterpiece at least until my next masterpiece. The Sherman performance against anti tank projectiles was horrific. Worse than most people believe. It was a zero protection tanks.
Again thanks for pointing me towards the sample so I could be the first one to actually analyse it without the agenda to BS people like Moran. You should start now preparing your arguments how hits on the guns that cut of the barrels are "non-penetrating hits"
What are you talking about? I asked on reddit if people know why the hits are so small on the front of a tank. You actually answered there and said you don't know. Lmao. Grasshopper? At this point I had already fully compiled the sample and had seen all the pictures you were linking.Now that is funny Grasshopper. . I remember when I had to explain to you how to read the drawings that show the various types of tanks and the hits. You had no idea at all how it worked!
Btw I believe I found the solution, the impacts were small due to track links being on the frontal plate, the hits were actually not withstood by the Sherman armour but make shift protection. Not surprising.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
- Location: Germany
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Kenny has also ignored all points raised by Critical Mass, as is custom.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Like you ignore my request to provide the War Dairy and AARs that show massive over-claiming by Allied Units you mean?Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 19:40Kenny has also ignored all points raised by Critical Mass, as is custom.
Have you forgotten your claim?
So where is this vast pool uncherrypicked Unit documents that list massive kill-claims?Christianmunich wrote: ↑04 Jan 2019, 21:31
what you do is cherry picking. You pick examples out of vast pool of possible examples that fit your case................ Quoting an after-action report about 10 destroyed enemy tanks is just the very definition of cherry picking.
..............This claim is strongly supported if we see how strong the overclaiming in the Allied armies was.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
- Location: Germany
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
No kenny exactly the opposite, like explained earlier to you. I provided numbers which you didn't liked and ignored, The 1200 claims. You then decided you don't like those because they support my point, and asked me to provide others, which I obviously can do without much trouble but I am not playing your game. I wait until you replied to the first set of numbers.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 19:48Like you ignore my request to provide the War Dairy and AARs that show massive over-claiming by Allied Units you mean?Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 19:40Kenny has also ignored all points raised by Critical Mass, as is custom.
When you get confronted with strong arguments you ignore them and ask for more. I decided we should wait until you actually reply to arguments before you get to pick new ones.
So Critial Mass, and I long before that, told you the British sample includes every glancing blow et cetera as "non penetrating hit" and also factored them into their "ratio". This means a projectile hitting the barrel from the side will be a "non penetrating hit". This is obviously nonsense because the projectile didn't even hit the armour. Same with hits on open hatches, mg mounts et cetera.
This argument was raised by Critical Mass in response to your claim xx% in the British study were scoops/non-penetrating hits in an attempt to imply "protection". How do you respond to that?
I claim this is misleading to the passive readers.
I will also soon even if you don't comment on the Zaloga overclaim present overclaim data of the US forces, it is next in line after the British sample.
Back to topic, how you respond to CMs points about "scoops"?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
I provided a War Dairy and you said:Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 19:56
I will also soon even if you don't comment on the Zaloga overclaim present overclaim data of the US forces"?
As far as I am aware Zaloga does not have a 'War Dairy' nor has he ever published one. Fact is you would not recognise a AAR if you tripped over it and is comical to watch Tom telling you where to find specific information on specific actions and you completely fail to understand what he is saying.what you do is cherry picking. You pick examples out of vast pool of possible examples that fit your case................ Quoting an after-action report about 10 destroyed enemy tanks is just the very definition of cherry picking.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
- Location: Germany
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Nono kenny. I said Zaloga claimed 1200 German tank kills in a period of 600 German peak strength. And you said the following: wow let me totally ingore your argument and provide a totally unrelated war diary of which I have not provided any kill corroboration. This kenny is not engaging my argument it is a strawmen and a really bad one. I gave you a massively overclaimed figure and you ignore it you still do Kenny.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 20:04I provided a War Dairy and you said:Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 19:56
I will also soon even if you don't comment on the Zaloga overclaim present overclaim data of the US forces"?
As far as I am aware Zaloga does not have a 'War Dairy' nor has he ever published one. Fact is you would not recognise a AAR if you tripped over it and is comical to watch Tom telling you where to find specific information on specific actions and you completely fail to understand what he is saying.what you do is cherry picking. You pick examples out of vast pool of possible examples that fit your case................ Quoting an after-action report about 10 destroyed enemy tanks is just the very definition of cherry picking.
What about the 1200 given by Zaloga what about this numbers?
reading your answer I assume he simply made the number up, right? Is that what you are saying, Zaloga just created the claims number?
I am not engaging your strawmen. Zaloga said 1200 kills what is your response to this?
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
I think you and Steve should get a room and you can ask him about his numbers afterwards.Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 20:14
Nono kenny. I said Zaloga............What about the 1200 given by Zaloga what about this numbers?............ are saying, Zaloga just created the claims number?.................Zaloga said 1200 kills what is your response to this?
I guess that means there is no chance you can provide a single War Dairy AAR with high kill claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qfBlDL ... tu.be&t=55
-
- Banned
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 26 Nov 2018, 18:37
- Location: Germany
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
My argument remains the same, I will provide AARs after you have actually engaged the arguments.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 20:18I think you and Steve should get a room and you can ask him about his numbers afterwards.Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 20:14
Nono kenny. I said Zaloga............What about the 1200 given by Zaloga what about this numbers?............ are saying, Zaloga just created the claims number?.................Zaloga said 1200 kills what is your response to this?
I guess that means there is no chance you can provide a single War Dairy AAR with high kill claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qfBlDL ... tu.be&t=55
Zaloga claims a very specific number that obviously is based on something. The number shows massive overclaim. Do you believe he forged the numbers? If not how do you explain them. They show ridiculous overclaim.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Sorry but I don't get my kill-claims from books when the primary documents are available for inspection. I would never, for example, believe any of Schneiders kill-claims for the Tigers so why should I bother with Zaloga's numbers.Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 20:29
My argument remains the same, I will provide AARs after you have actually engaged the arguments.
Zaloga is a moderator here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missing ... up-f47208/Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 20:29Zaloga claims a very specific number that obviously is based on something.
Why don't you post and ask him. He normally replies to all enquiries.
The reason have been explained to you in the excruciating detail but you simply refuse to listen. These figures are crucial to your fantasy world and you have no option but to stick with them to the very end.Christianmunich wrote: ↑06 Jan 2019, 20:29The number shows massive overclaim. Do you believe he forged the numbers? If not how do you explain them. They show ridiculous overclaim.
Now can we get back to reality. Where are the War Diaries that show massive kill-claims. Surely you can not have lied about having them?
Want another example?
Polish 2nd Armoured Regiment
1st August 1944 to 6th May 1945
CASUALTIES INFLICTED ON THE ENEMY Destroyed or captured:
15 tanks of "Tiger", "Panther" and Mark IV type
12 self - propelled guns
86 guns various calibres
234 vehicles various types
Captured prisoners:
21 officers
1546 other ranks
REGIMENTAL LOSSES
Personnel:
Killed:
8 officers
46 other ranks
Died of wounds:
1 officer
10 other ranks
Missing:
6 other ranks
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Patton, while defending the virtue of M4 Sherman, claimed that Third army, since its activation in 1st August, destroyed 2,287 tanks, including 808 Panthers and Tigers, for 851 losses of M4 tanks.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8251
- Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
- Location: Teesside
Re: Tiger I versus 76mm ( US )
Now find me a post or thread anywhere where someone runs with those numbers and tries to claim they are correct.
Patton's numbers are about as inflated as Schneiders.