Need some help all please

[fullmetaljacket]

Hello all just wondering if anyone knows of or has any way of getting a ballistic software for tank guns and small arms of world war two era? I have been looking for days now and have not came across anything even close to what I'm looking for. I'm working on a set of rules and would really like to have this real world data. I would think that it would not be classified anymore since the war has been over for more than 60 years.

I have heard of one made years ago callled HP ballistic, but did a google and nothhing came up. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated and welcomed. Also if anyone else has other ideas or ways they come up with ther data I would love the advice. Really looking to be able to say ok a 75mm shell muzzle velocity is " " and it can penetrate so much armor at 0 degrees and 100 yards, then go from there ie at 300 yrds, 500 yrds, 1000 yards, and also at different degress ie 0, 15, 30, 45, 60 etc.. Thanks all for the help.

fullmetaljacket

[1ComOpsCtr]

I don't think you are going to find anything official, by which I mean, anything made at any of the proving grounds, etc... not for WW-2. Most of the charts have been extrapolated from the minimal information published during and shortly after the war which were based on only a couple of rounds fired.

I do not know the intended use of the data you seek, but there is another aspect of this issue that you may need to consider. No two shots by any WW2 anti-tank gun were the same in combat, and even the shots during testing differ unless the rounds fired are exactly alike, ...which very rarely happened.

Even the giant "wargame computers" at Leavenworth make an educated guess for many of the shots taken during training... and that's with current equipment and data that can't be all that accurate under combat conditions.

Will

[fullmetaljacket]

I guess what I'm really looking for is lets say the standard M4 sherman with the 75mm main gun. At 100 yards with a 0 degree armor slope what thickness could it pentrate. then move to 30 degrees then on up to 60 and most of your degrees of armor slope during the war. And so forth down thru the different main guns of the major armies during the war. not asking for exact numbers just a idea or a formula i can come up with or use for the different guns and ammo.

fullmetaljacket

[BattlerBritain]

There used to be a really great site at http://www.hypospace.net/armorpen/armorptest1.html that enabled you to enter the gun type, range, target and target aspect and it would compute the hit and kill probability for hitting different parts of the target. All done in Java.

Unfortunately the site seems to have disappeared and I can't find a new equivalent.

However, there is a wealth of data on gunnery at http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/introduction.html . Just make sure your popup blocker is on though.

Cheers,

Battler

[probert]

Much of the information you want can be found in the Combat Mission series of video games produced by battlefront.

[fullmetaljacket]

probert i have that game and that is where i was coming up with the idea. I just wonder where they got that info? maybe i can email them personally. what do you all think. Also BattleBritian thanks for the web page that is nice site.

fullmetaljacket

[Timothy OConnor]

Guns vs armor:

http://gva.freeweb.hu/index.html


Interesting data on German weapons:

http://www.panzerworld.net/armourpenetration.html


You'll find that a lot of sources usually reference just a couple of primary sources developed during and just after WWII. A tough problem is that in many cases there are no standards for this data, even when looking at tests conducted under "scientific" conditions (even the allies differed on armor testing standards/definitions).

There's also the problem that test conditions don't tell the whole story. For example, side armor is thinner but often hit at a huge angle from the "front" so the in-game rating must make an explicit and consistent assumption as to angle relative to thickness.

You'll see this issue crop up in comparing certain tanks. Some games rate the Tiger I as having better frontal armor (hull armor 100mm) than the Panther (hull armor 80mm). But due to the great slope of the Panther armor many games rate the Panther as having better armor.

And then which value do you use? Upper Hull? Lower Hull? Turret? Mantlet? Average? Mean? etc. What is the assumed angle of impact? At shorter ranges the projectile is coming in level so the greater slope is more effective. At very long ranges there's a more pronounced drop in the round.

And what about armor quality and shot quality? Both change significantly when looking at various nations over the course of the war. 80mm of German armor at one point in the war is not the same as 80mm later in the war.

In doing your research it's probably best to use a combo of hard data with rules of thumb developed by troops in the field. And don't forget to meet gamer's expectations, no matter how much they might deviate from the data. You could be techincally right in many cases but that might not matter to the grognard gamer who KNOWS that a 57mm gun can't kill a Panther!

For my own home grown efforts I just take a broad wag at the values and look at RELATIVE values rather than absolute values and simplifiy the data accordingly and significantly (Armor ratings = Front, Side, Top).

Tim

PS I spoke to a 57mm gunner who said that his unit's standard procedure was to shoot the tracks of enemy tanks and then calll in air support. He said that once tracked German tankers usually shot of a few rounds of MG fire in their direction and then bailed out very quickly instead of waiting around to be killed. You can't design around anecdotes from old soldiers or squirrely data alone...at the end of the day the game simply needs to feel about right to the player and should probably take into account many different types of sources...data, old soldier memories, unit histories, training manuals (late war is better!!!), and gamer sensibilities.

[BattlerBritain]

Came across some good discussion on this over at the Tanknet forums:
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=21707

[Timothy OConnor]

Here's an excellent book that can serve as a general guide on this topic:

Tank Killing by Ian Hogg

http://www.amazon.com/Tank-Killing-Anti ... 158&sr=8-1

Great reference on how AT weapons developed (whether tank gun, personal AT weapons, missiles, etc.) and how tanks are actually killed. It's not merely penetration but making a tank combat ineffective which can happen lots of ways.
[/url]

[Mk 1]

Came across some good discussion on this over at the Tanknet forums

The Armor Scientific Forum at TankNet has been an active field for discussion of this very topic for several years. You can read thousands of hours of discussions of the interaction of projectiles versus armor, and if you begin with certainty you will most surely end in doubts.

If your quest is to find a single equation for AP ballistics that will correlate with historical results, along the lines of "a projectile of mass A and muzzle velocity B will penetrate armor of thickness X at slope Y according to this function which is drawn as this line on the chart", you are tilting with windmills. The science is very complicated, and not yet perfect. All of the variables are not known, much less all of their interactions, and there are MANY variables and MANY interactions.

For example, the amount of protection provided by the slope of the armor is highly dependant on the diameter of the projectile striking it. We can look at a sloped plate and compute its "apperant" thickness (the thickness of armor transected by a line drawn through it along the line of flight of the projectile). But if you projectile diameter is wider than the ACTUAL thickness of the armor (versus the APPERANT thickness due to the slope), which is refered to as a projectile with "overmatch", then the slope will have less effect on the round than it would on a smaller diameter round.

Shape of the projectile also has a big effect. A blunt tip will penetrate differently than a pointed tip. Also hardness of the projectile, versus hardness of the face of the armor makes a big difference. And the differences change with slope, thickness, and diameter. So a small diameter round (no overmatch), with a blunt shouldered tip, will penetrate better if it strikes a sloped plate than if it strikes a vertical plate of equivalent "apperant" thickness. An ogival tipped projectile will be likely to dig a channel into sloped armor, but start to deflect away as it goes deeper into the channel, and so may be deflected without penetrating. A very pointed projectile will again penetrate well against a sloped plate, but only IF the projectile is harder than the plate -- if the plate is harder than the projectile it will very likely riccochet off.

The relationships also change in different velocity bands -- metals behave differently when strikes are made above about 3,600 fps ... the relationships of mass-to-velocity versus the affects from the materials all shift.

Then you have the many target aspects -- even from a single aspect there could be wide variances in protection levels. A Tiger's mantlet was notably thicker than its front hull, while a Pz IVH's turret front was notably thinner than the hull front. And even on a Tiger, the mantlet the armor varied in thickness by more than 10% from one part to another. Now you also have the many "anamolies" in the armor; some resulting from manufacturing processes, others from design. Cast armor did not provide the same levels of protection as rolled homogenous plate. And any hole through the armor (vision slots, MG mounts, hatches, etc.) significantly reduced the protection provided by the armor around those holes (the so-called "edge effect"). So the actual protection a Tiger's mantlet provided could vary by more than 20% depending on exactly where it was hit.

Of all the wargames rules I've seen, Mobius' PanzerWar do the best job of accounting for this kind of information. That's one reason I've said that I feel his have the best technical accuracy. And they are surprisingly playable given that level of detail. But still not within the category of rules that emphasize "playability". However, if you want to see a great body of research brought down to "if - then" tables, download a set of the PanzerWar rules (they're FREE! What a guy!) and start reading. Even if you don't play the rules, they are a fantastic resource.

[Gort]

FMJ

I don't know how complex and/or involved a game model you are working on, but over the years I've bookmarked a few sites that you may find helpful. No downloadable software packages but maybe these sites will inspire your google-fu in new directions.

DeMarre Equations
http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/ARMOR-CHAPTER-XII-B.html

Compound Angles of Attack and Actual US Army firing tests in 1944
http://www.wargaming.info/armour02.htm

An interesting discussion of just how deep a can of worms you are considering opening
http://spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm

If all this stuff has you ready to pull out your hair then you can visit this next site. The individual who put it together took the time to make a fairly complete list of the information that you want to determine via formulas. The information may not be 100% correct (heck, it might not even be 50% correct - YMMV) but it will give you a baseline for a set of rules. You can then modify the values based on the above sites and upon reported combat results.
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/al ... on_adv.php

Best of luck!

Steve

[BattlerBritain]

re: Tanknet Forums.
- yeah Mk1, I'm just reading some of your posts now

Great site, lots of info, but as you say, if you start out with answers you soon end up with doubts.

[1ComOpsCtr]

Let's look at the question posed in another light...

The skill of a tank's crew, when dealing with one-on-one armor encounters, plays a larger part in the eventual decision (successful or unsuccessful combat) than gun performance when you consider normal engagement ranges. What you consider normal engagement range can obviously vary greatly depending on the type of terrain encountered. Regardless, a more skilled crew can outduel a lesser skilled opponent in an superior machine or against greater numbers simply through their cohesion, knowledge of the performance of their machine, and tactical acumen.

But it still all comes down to chance... because even with today's weaponry it is possible to fail to kill an enemy tank at 500 meters simply because of a mistake during any of the processes that are necessary to do so...

In our simulations with the military we assume the weapons being used during our engagements (usually under 1000 meters) will kill if a hit is scored, ...even if not a direct hit there is still a very good chance a kill will occur. Therefore the only way to simulate reality (in which kills do not occur all the time for a wide variety of reasons) is to take into account all the other variables in the equation like reaction times, training, humidity, wind, viability, outside influences (crew), unusual vehicle movement, etc., etc., etc...

In a game you can't do that and make the game playable unless you use minute increments of time and take every variable into account with an endless booklet of charts that must be consulted for every shot (like using the book of gun charts).

So, back to CHANCE... for the person who wants to do a "simulation" chance is often a bad word, but for the person who wants a playable game, chance is a way to engage players, and simulate the endless variables of combat.

There is a simple mechanism for influencing the outcome of a dice rolling contest when it takes a "high score" to win. Make the size (number of facets) of the dice being used variable depending on skill, quality of equipment, range, training, etc... There are a couple of rules sets that use different dice (d4 through d12) for different levels of technology and other factors within the composition of a players force that work pretty well toward making a playable game, but don't quite take it far enough in my view.

Real success in combat is all about the commander who makes the best use of time.

Time is the only commodity you (as a commander) can not compensate for the misuse of... You can't really make up for wasting it, you can't move in time, and you can't stop it so you can think for a few moments... so what does that mean for the gamer, especially the gamer who wants to simulate WW2 tank battles.

Let's take a hypothetical look at a small tank engagement...

A platoon of Sherman tanks is moving down a road (any road) in Western French Bocage country being very observant as to what's going on around them. This platoon is made up of five crews, two of which have been with the platoon since they landed at Normandy, all of whom are rested after a week out of the line for rest and refit.

They are opposed by a mixed German platoon of 2 Mk-IV Stugs and a Panther waiting down the road in an ideal ambush position... All three vehicles have crews that have not slept in 12 hours, are underfed, and short of water; but they are highly motivated because they are the only force able to protect the flank of their Regiment.

At the ranges this engagement will take place penetration and armor thickness will have some effect, but no where near as much as reaction time of the crew and how long it takes for them to fire effectively, and perhaps the choice of rounds being used... depending on their state of ammo supply and variety of same.

What is the key to the survival of those American tanks and how can you measure what it takes to find and use that key in a game situation? That's what makes a game interesting in my view...

Will

[Timothy OConnor]

Will,

You mentioned your simuations for the army and the assumed range of 1000m.

I'm very curious as to what the official army training assumptions are when it comes to tank gunnery for both US forces and OPFOR. I'm curious for a couple of reasons.

In WWII gaming there are many who believe that the uber-guns such as the German 88-XL can routinely wing off killer shots at 3,000 to 4,000 meters. Given WWII era fire control technology and the muzzle velocity of even this sort of weapon that seems like a real stretch. Maybe if both target and shooter are perfectly stationary, there is little difference in elevation between target and shooter, wind is minimal, and visibility is clear. And the target sits still while being bracketed by the shooter!

But outside of those ideal parameters it seems that scoring hits at such extreme ranges is very difficult. Recently I came across a diagram from a US army training document that shows the effective engagement range of a Russian T-62 tank as being 1,500m. That seems more reasonable and very different from many wargame rules in which Panthers with no gun stability and primative fire control zip around the battlefield scoring kills at 3,000m. On the other hand, I've read reports of US tanks killing Iraqi tanks at ranges approaching 4,000m.

And like you I've come to believe that while the physics that determine weapon performance is important, it's training, skill, and tactics that are the most imporant factors when determining victory and defeat all else being roughly equal.

Based on my research it appears that human ergonomics and fallibility are the primary factors in determining weapon effectiveness. A Hellfire missile can hit targets at 8,000m but the human can't always figure out if a valid target exists at such ranges. It seems that under battlefield conditions effective engagment ranges for most "heavy wepons" is around 1,000m to 2,000m simply because under those conditions that's the distance at which troops can ID and engage targets effectively.

Even guided weapons face this limitation to some degree. In the book Roughneck 91 the author describes using Javelins to kill Iraqi vehicles at ranges in excess of the weapon's specs (they were killing AFVs at 2,700m with the Javelin). But at these ranges it was not always possible to ID targets and get a lock because of the AFV's use of concealment...just by being partially obscured the target signature at that range was too small for a good lock sometimes.

Anyway, it would be very interesting to read your comments on what training doctrine and experience can tell us gamers about "effective weapon range" with respect to tank gunnery (and even other forms of weapons such as HMGs...Roughneck 91 also contained interesting anecdotes as to what these expert troops thought was effective range for the .50 cal.)

Tim

[1ComOpsCtr]

Tim,

Today In the desert it is possible to fire out to extreme ranges over fairly flat even terrain as illustrated by 73 Easting, which amplified the technological differences between the armor fielded by Iraq and that of the US. The defenders could not see the attackers, as was the case in almost every engagement of that conflict and since.

At Fort Polk we deal with MOUT situations where having an engagement beyond a few hundred meters is unusual although at places like the NTC or 29 Palms it is normal for the range to be closer to 2000+ meters where the terrain allows it. It all depends on what terrain you're fighting over...

Prior to the more modern ranging and stabilization equipment of the past two decades tank gunnery was a skill, not just a function of application... Only skilled gunners knocked out tanks during combat after training hours at long distances with great personal effort, ...not off hand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stor ... 3315.shtml

This link leads you to the alleged description of the combat where Michael Whitman died in one of three Tiger tanks destroyed by a Sherman Firefly. Note the range... While the vaunted "88" could reach out and touch someone at ranges similar to those of today's weapons the sighting and stabilization of the gun did not allow it to function consistently at those ranges unless the terrain provided the opportunities. Again, unless the terrain provided favorable positions to fire "as in a shooting gallery" tank vs tank battles were encounters at closer ranges than 1000 meters... where the skill of the crew made the difference in who got off the first shot, because at that close range any shot usually killed if placed in a killing location. Shot placement was and is still a function of crew skill, ...not primarily a weapon's power.

Crew skill played a greater part in killing enemy tanks in WW2 than any other part of the equation, ...in my view!

If you look at firing a tank gun as a function of time it is the skill of the loader and the gunner at directing the gun at its target (and the time it takes them to do their jobs) that determines who will usually win the engagement...

Will