Are these average values​​?

[O.Schmidt]

Where the Armo the penetration values ​​come from? Are these average values​​?
Comparisons COBFG the 7.5cm KwK 40 L/48 on 1000m> Pen 102mm!
Here http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/75-mm.asp
at 1000m> Pen 87mm!

[Arjuna]

I'll let Richard Simonitch, our resident data expert, provide more detail on this. What I can say is that the values we use are based on primary sources, wherever possible. The armour penetration values we use may differ from published data where this is not based on a 30 degree armour slope. In such cases you need to apply a modifier to convert it.

[O.Schmidt]

Thanks for the quick reply!
I'm waiting for Mr. Simonitchs feedback!
(I am new in COBFG ! I like this gamesystem!)[:)]

[Phoenix100]

Welcome, O. Schmidt! it's a superb system. Glad you've discovered it!

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: O.Schmidt

Where the Armo the penetration values ​​come from? Are these average values​​?
Comparisons COBFG the 7.5cm KwK 40 L/48 on 1000m> Pen 102mm!
Here http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/75-mm.asp
at 1000m> Pen 87mm!

There are a few things going on here. One is the factor that Dave mentions, wherein we converted published penetration data, which is usually based on tests fired on a 30d plate, to a vertical (0d) equivalent. Note that 87/cos30d is about 100. We also added an adjustment sometimes to account for the availability of different types of AP rounds.

conversely, the games vehicular armor protection was also converted to vertical equivalent. So you may notice that the side of a Tiger, which has near vertical armor plates is represented in the game similar to published plate thicknesses. While the front of a Sherman with it's sloped glacis has a game thickness much thicker than the published plate thickness. There is also a bit of an adjustment for the deflection of the round against the slanted surface of the target.

Hope this helps.

[O.Schmidt]

Thank!
mm ja OK![&:]

one more question!
Why is the front armor at the Pz4J in BFTBE thinner as the Pz4H in COTAE?
See picture!

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: O.Schmidt

Thank!
mm ja OK![&:]

one more question!
Why is the front armor at the Pz4J in BFTBE thinner as the Pz4H in COTAE?
See picture!

Simply going by the model numbers, on the face of it, the PzKw IV H and PzKw IV Ausf J are two different designs.

The attached article said that the H variant had an armor upgrade applied to the chassis, and the J version was a retrograde to save weight and increase the speed of production to cover losses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV

I haven't looked for the detailed engineering design records for the variants (the design-to specification).

But, based on defining logistics support to address variations in design for current armored vehicles, it is possible part of the J series weight saving effort could have included a change in the front armor thickness (the quickest way to remove weight from armored vehicles is to address the armor weight issues).

The only way to confirm whether the game data is inconsistent is to find the original engineering specification for the vehicles and compare the design specifications.

[O.Schmidt]

NO!!
Firt Pz4H after Pz4J! Same Front armour Plate 80mm!
Armor was almost the same!
only differences in the technique! Easy to Building!
and fuel supply 680 liters! H have 470 liters!
Look:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerkampfwagen_IV
Or Book:
Thomas L.Jentz
Die deutsche Panzertruppe (Band 2)

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: O.Schmidt

NO!!
Firt Pz4H after Pz4J! Same Front armour Plate 80mm!
Armor was almost the same!
only differences in the technique! Easy to Building!
and fuel supply 680 liters! H have 470 liters!
Look:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerkampfwagen_IV
Or Book:
Thomas L.Jentz
Die deutsche Panzertruppe (Band 2)

Wikipedia doesn't necessarily reflect the first source (copy of original information) engineering design spec.

Academic arguments revolve around citation of the the original (first) source of the Wikipedia information (rather than quoting someone's book which may or may not have a first source reference), and perhaps the discrepancy is traced to an error.

Academic discipline requires first source documentation as the original design specifications rather than someone saying what they think those are.

Anything spoken without a first source reference is speculation, at least if research is to be empirical.

If _Die Deutsche Panzertruppe_ contains a bibliographic reference to a Nazi armored vehicle design document, then perhaps the argument is accurate.

Otherwise, it's speculation no matter the prestige of the person speculating.

[BletchleyGeek]

I can only hypothesize that Richard/Simovitch was trying to account for lower quality alloys used in the manufacture of the later Pz IV iterations.

Of course, the degree to what those documented lower quality plates were easier to penetrate than that of earlier models is up for discussion. Probably one which has been gone over several times in other sites (like Combat Mission forums). In any case, you can edit the values to your heart's content - and compile the estab - so the scenarios use your revised values, and experiment to see what works best to account for the data you have at hand.

[simovitch]

The 66mm BFTB Pz IVJ looks right, since I developed the armor data is a weighted-by-surface-area average of the hull (80mm) and the turret (50mm).

I worked on the BFTB estabs and tried to update the COTA estabs as much as possible. COTA was done before my time but I thought I caught all of the anomalies. I think this is pretty minor IMO but I'll take a look at them again if Dave thinks it's worth it.

[simovitch]

Here was my main source for armor data: Tanks & Vehicles Database

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

Here was my main source for armor data: Tanks & Vehicles Database

Great resource!

Thanks.

[Phoenix100]

'Pretty minor' would be my assessment too.

But I look forward to O. Schmidt's work correcting those bits of data that he can reliably correct. Hopefully he will post the corrected estabs for us to use, with a list of corrections? He may have some special expertise in armour, so that would be great, and no doubt much appreciated by all.

[O.Schmidt]

Hi simovitch
Nice page!
is Your website?

The problem is that the turret front armor is 50mm but the Blende (I dont know the word in english? BLENDE!
This is the place where is the cannon stored and protected!) is 80mm!
I think 72.5 is the correct value for H and G !

Vor H: fuel supply 470 liters!
Vor G: fuel supply 680 liters!

(fuel consumption 71LPH/107LPH I think? or more? I don`t!!?? )

!

[O.Schmidt]

Hello simovitch
I think you're right with your specification for the Pz 4J![:)]

I have looked into three books!
1 Walter Spielberger: turret armor H + J is 80mm
2 Thomas Jentz: turret armor H + J is 50mm

In most books is 50mm!

I come now to the value of 66![:)]

Thank!