Panther v Tiger hard attack value issue

[MTTODD]

Why is the Tiger Hard attack value of 329 so much better than the Panther value of 245 ?

When the Panther 75mm gun had superior armour penetration than the Tiger 88mm

Appreciate any help in answering this question, many thanks.

[Capt Cliff]

I found this website that says the 88mm Pak 43 was better than the 75mm L70. Not sure where the guy got his data.
https://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4665
Here's another website;
http://www.panzer-war.com/page59.html

The 88 Kwk 43 L71 of the Tiger II seems to be better, but had a lower rate of fire. The Tiger I gun seems to have less penetration than the Panther gun.

[Oberst_Klink]

Why is the Tiger Hard attack value of 329 so much better than the Panther value of 245 ?

When the Panther 75mm gun had superior armour penetration than the Tiger 88mm

Appreciate any help in answering this question, many thanks.

I hope Davide will allow us to use this Excel sheet with the various calculations for the att/def etc. values for the tanks
and other trooptypes in order to create T-34 and other tanks, too.

Klink, Oberst

[MTTODD]

No issue with the Tiger 2, its with he Tiger 1

The Panther 75mm gun was superior to the Tiger 1 gun in armour penetration.

[nikdav]

In the field test with the best ammo yes but in the real life size matter !
A perfect penetration is very rare in battle and a 88mm shot can kill a tank only with the impact !

gunshots.jpg (64.41 KiB) Viewed 2274 times

[nikdav]

I hope Davide will allow us to use this Excel sheet with the various calculations for the att/def etc. values for the tanks
and other trooptypes in order to create T-34 and other tanks, too.

Klink, Oberst

Sadly the Excel is not specific for DC4 and many data are no more used, outdated or related to other games !
I must made a selection of Soviet Tanks with DC4 data asap !
Davide

[nikdav]

Why is the Tiger Hard attack value of 329 so much better than the Panther value of 245 ?
When the Panther 75mm gun had superior armour penetration than the Tiger 88mm
Appreciate any help in answering this question, many thanks.

The hard/soft - atk/def values are related to the combat algorithm so we start with a base value (for the Tiger I) and than with the same formula made all other values.

The hard attack value is : (Barrel length mm * 2)* (Shot weigth in kg )/300

Tiger I =(( 88*56)*2)*10)/300 ))= 329
Panther=(( 75*70)*2)*7)/300 ))= 245
Tiger II =(( 88*71)*2)*10)/300 ))= 417
T34/76 =(( 76*42)*2)*6)/300 ))= 128
T34/85 =(( 85*52)*2)*8)/300 ))= 236
M4-75 =(( 75*31)*2)*7)/300 ))= 109
M4-76 =(( 76*52)*2)*7)/300 ))= 184
M4-Firefly = (( 76*55)*2)*8)/300 ))= 223

[MTTODD]

Hi,

Thanks for your info regarding the combat algorithm.

I 'am not saying it's easy to model every tank gun and I'm sure it does a decent job of simulating the values, but unfortunately it is missing the initial muzzle velocity value.

See below for APCBC ammunition:

75mm Kwk 42 Initial muzzle velocity (m/s) 925 Shot weight 3.67 Penetration 117-129

88mm Kwk 36 Initial muzzle velocity (m/s) 780 Shot weight 5.4 Penetration 110

Source : 'Armoured Champion: The Tope tanks of WW2' Steven Zaloga (Page 177)

This is why the Panther should have a higher hard attack value than the Tiger 1.

[ernieschwitz]

I once read somewhere, that if a problem is presented, but no solution presented, within the framework of the original theory, then the chances of something being done about it is pretty small.

In other words, suggest a system that takes muzzle velocity into account, that falls somewhat in line with the current one

At least that would be my advice.

[MTTODD]

I don't think it is unreasonable of me to point out a deficiency in the algorithm.

Hopefully by doing this, the designers of the system (far smarter than me) can change and improve the game.

That's my only aim.

[DesertedFox]

I once read somewhere, that if a problem is presented, but no solution presented, within the framework of the original theory, then the chances of something being done about it is pretty small.

At least that would be my advice.

Okay, I see a problem with the "algorithm".

Before going into details, it's fairly standard knowledge that the Panther's anti-tank penetration was slightly better than that of the Tiger 1.

Given that is not the case in this game immediately raises a red flag.

Armor Penetration Table

https://panzerworld.com/armor-penetration-table

7,5 cm Kw K 42 (L/70)
7,5 cm Pzgr. 39/42 APCBC-HE-T 6.80 kg 935 m/s 138 mm 124 mm 111 mm 99 mm 88 mm
7,5 cm Pzgr. 40/42 APCR-T 4.75 kg 1070 m/s 180 mm 159 mm 136 mm 114 mm 94 mm

8,8 cm Kw K 36 (L/56)
8,8 cm Pzgr. APCBC-HE-T 9.50 kg 810 m/s 97 mm 93 mm 87 mm 80 mm 72 mm
8,8 cm Pzgr. 39 APCBC-HE-T 10.20 kg 773 m/s 120 mm 110 mm 100 mm 91 mm 84 mm
8,8 cm Pzgr. 40 APCR-T 7.30 kg 930 m/s 170 mm 155 mm 138 mm 123 mm 110 mm
8,8 cm Gr. 39 Hl HEAT 7.65 kg 600 m/s 90 mm 90 mm 90 mm 90 mm 90 mm

When using the test results, it is important to bear in mind the following:

Test plates were placed at an angle of 60 degrees from horizontal. Unless otherwise stated, the assumed impact angle is 60 degrees from horizontal.
The quality of the armor plates used to test ammunition would not always match real-world conditions.
Penetration numbers were not based solely on actual firing tests. Instead, penetration data from penetration tests would usually be extrapolated by adjusting for shell velocities. Because real-world penetration mechanics are much more complex than this, penetration numbers should only be considered a general guide.
Penetration data for different guns were calculated for different distances. As a result, the penetration data at some ranges are blank for some guns.
Some ammunition types, especially that with tungsten cores, was very rare. As the war progressed, German tungsten supplies became very low and production of tungsten-cored ammunition effectively ceased.

I am not sure why the algorithm isn't based directly on the actual real-life performance of the respective guns with the adjustments flowing from this figure.

To put it bluntly, if the end result of the algorithm is incorrect, then the algorithm is flawed.

[ernieschwitz]

I don't think it is unreasonable of me to point out a deficiency in the algorithm.

Hopefully by doing this, the designers of the system (far smarter than me) can change and improve the game.

That's my only aim.

Of course you are entitled to any form of critique you want to give. It is even valuable. Something is off, you point that out, and that is exactly what you should do. However, if they are to change the algorithm, without needing to re-balance the whole thing, it is not unreasonable to assume that the algorithm be changed to reflect the values it currently has, right? Either that or the game needs to be shut down while everyone waits for all the re-balancing to occur.

Of course a "simple" solution would be to allow the designer of a scenario to adjust these settings. To "wing it" so to speak. But that is not up to me. I am just posting my point too.

[ernieschwitz]

I am not sure why the algorithm isn't based directly on the actual real-life performance of the respective guns with the adjustments flowing from this figure.

To put it bluntly, if the end result of the algorithm is incorrect, then the algorithm is flawed.

... and to put it bluntly: If the GAME functions despite the algorithm being wrong, then the GAME isn't flawed.

I am drawing from my extensive knowledge of the history and theory of science. It shows, if nobody shows up with a theory that explains what the previous theory explained, then the "errors" of the previous theory, won't get corrected, because "hey this works pretty well, let's not throw everything out with the bathwater."

I am assuming, and this may be in error, that something about problem-solving in general can be deduced from the history and theory of science. That is why I to put it bluntly say: Come up with a better model.

Luckily the designers (which I am not one of) decided to make an editor. If you don't want to come up with an algorithm, and want to "wing it", I am sure you can do just that and in my opinion that could lead to a better game.

[Rosseau]

I am learning a lot from this thread. And yes, every DC game I play modded a bit to my own liking.

Now, if this were Steel Panthers (a tactical game), the OP's concerns would be potentially troubling, to say the least. But as this is an operational game that tries its best to drill down to the tactical, DC:AO pretty much gets it right.

This in no way denigrates the OP's observations. They are very valuable, and I will look to other tactical games to see if they get it right!

Best wishes to all.

[DesertedFox]

Excuse me for having an opinion based on actual field tests and science.

Impact energy is far more dependent on velocity than projectile mass (generally related to the shell diameter).

So, just an aside:

E=(1/2)*mass*velocity^2

Doubling muzzle velocity will increase energy by a factor of four, while doubling mass will only increase energy by a factor of two.

This is why, for example, 5.56mm assault rifles are far more lethal than a 9mm pistol. The pistol fires a beefier round but the rifle fires its round with a much higher velocity.

The aerodynamic shape of the round determines how much speed the round will lose with distance.

The type of round will also affect what sort of muzzle velocity you can get.

A 75mm Sabot AP round will achieve a higher muzzle velocity than a normal 75mm AP round. While the old-style AP shell is fitted to the barrel diameter, the sabot shell is actually smaller than the 75mm diameter of the barrel, but it is held in place by a "discarding sabot", a sort of boot made of lighter materials, which fits the barrel and falls off after the round is fired. Thus the same explosive charged can be used as for the standard AP round, but since the sabot round has less mass, it will be accelerated to a higher velocity.

Also, rounds fired from rifled barrels which stabalize the shell by causing it to spin about its length will have a lower muzzle velocity than fin-stabalized rounds fired from smoothbore barrels, because some of the energy from the explosive cartridge is used up in the rotational acceleration of the round, whereas in the latter case, all of the energy accelerates the round straight forward.

Anyway, the game has an editor.

I'll use that.

[ernieschwitz]

Excuse me for having an opinion based on actual field tests and science.

I am not in any way suggesting that your science is wrong.

[MTTODD]

Hi,

Thanks everyone for contributing to the discussion, always great when done in a friendly way!

I'm no expert, but always been interested in military stuff(especially tank), so when I saw Panther hard attack
less than Tiger 1, it instantly looked wrong to me.

It's a great game, and as I said the algorithm probably works most of the time.

But would still be interested in the designers of the game and there views on including the 'Initial velocity' in the game calculation.

Everyone have a great day!

[nikdav]

Very nice discussion !
I think also the rounds available, had great value in real combat !

Tiger I =92
Panther =79
Tiger II =86
T34/76 =77
T34/85 =56
M4-75 =109
M4-76 =71
M4-Firefly =77
M36 =47
Crommwell = 64
KV I =111
IS II =28

[Capt Cliff]

Not to add fuel to the fire but how many Tiger I's actually fought in the Battle of the Bulge? I did a cursory search via Google for the OOB of the German forces and found only two heavy panzer battalions in the German OOB. One was the 301st attached to 9th Panzer Div and the other the 501st SS Heavy Panzer battalion attached to 1st LAH. I could not find the TO%E of the 301st but I did find out that the 501st SS unit converted from Tiger I's to Tiger II's in the summer of 44'. So the only Tigers the US forces would have encountered was the Tiger II, and the Tiger II gun IS better than the Panther 75mm L70, so the game data is correct.

Addendum; I found another heavy tank battalion, the 506th attached to 6th PZ Army. It might have had Tiger I's and II's. There is a site that references that it might have had a mixed bag of Tiger I's and II's!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/506th_Hea ... _Battalion

An as for 301st Battalion it has somethin weird about it. It's noted that it was radio controlled!!?? Not sure what that means. FYI

[pz501]

The 301st Battalion was officially "s.PzAbt 301(FKL)". Translated it means that it was a heavy tank battalion that was equipped to control the Goliath remote demolition vehicles. FKL meaning " funklink" or "radio link".

Whether or not 301 ever really functioned that way I have no idea. I do know that in the Ardennes it was understrength, and supposedly operated the only Tiger Is present in the battle (but see below). It had no Goliaths with it at that time.

I've also read s.PzAbt 506 had a mixture of Tiger Is and IIs. Entirely possible, since before the offensive it was forced to give up some of it's Tiger IIs to bring s.SS PzAbt 501 up to strength.