tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post1224405772272227313..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Sd.Kfz.222 Under FirePeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-63630140878524149032018-04-12T10:03:08.376-04:002018-04-12T10:03:08.376-04:00Tests on captured equipement are done with whateve...Tests on captured equipement are done with whatever you have to work with, which in the case of Isigny was a random sample of 3 Panthers in suitable condition (the far more numerous ones in *unsuitable* state were used to establish a ballpark estimate of appropriate firing distance in preliminary firings).<br /><br />Two out of three failing rather dramatically certainly does not sound like the average given the general trouble the kitty gave in frontal engagements; that such "bad eggs" were found on the frontline AT ALL however speaks volumes of the degree to which the Germans were obliged to sacrifice quality control for the sake of output.<br />A rather well-attested problem that had dogged them from the start and only got worse over time owing to brutal economic and industrial realities, so I honestly have a hard time seeing why you're even trying to dispute the point. Their planners, designers and engineers did what they could to compensate for and circumvent such issues but they were no miracle workers.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-36567384539414465832018-04-10T10:27:19.444-04:002018-04-10T10:27:19.444-04:00You posted an excerpt from one test that did not d...You posted an excerpt from one test that did not discuss quality at all. I posted half a dozen reports that discussed both specific samples and the quality of German armour overall. Why do you believe that your single excerpt is more significant than many tests?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-3148730925072048272018-04-10T10:22:15.476-04:002018-04-10T10:22:15.476-04:00I posted a british post ww2 report which refutes Y...I posted a british post ww2 report which refutes Your single test and is twelve times as significant in sample size. On the same plate material. You decided to ignore it. and for the record, the previous memo is not directed to You but to someone else.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-8635261662686403572018-04-09T11:01:06.397-04:002018-04-09T11:01:06.397-04:00Wait a minute, so in response to me posting actual...Wait a minute, so in response to me posting actual detailed trials, you whine and complain that there is not enough details and not enough information. However, then you retort by posting random photographs with absolutely no information about the details trials performed at all! Do you understand your own hypocrisy? Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-59722265217840438582018-04-09T10:51:10.240-04:002018-04-09T10:51:10.240-04:00When You want to assess plate quality, You better ...When You want to assess plate quality, You better deal with the plate and not with free edge effects, that´s how professional prooving ground personal today and even in ww2 often does. Only unskilled personal and Peter Samsonov would quote skewed data in an attempt to prove that a given plate is poor. Free edge effect does reduce the apparent thickness of plate by up to 15%. That gives a lot of scatter in the data if it is mixed with fair hits.<br /><br />You can cite many cases of PANTHER glacis hit events which were resisted or defeated without cracking in ductile mode too:<br /><br />http://www.ww2incolor.com/german-armor/501.html<br /><br />http://i.imgur.com/grkVzbD.jpg<br /><br />http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5729/116pzpantherkoautumn441.jpg<br /><br />https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ya72xPGSorc/WGZwh6Sm3pI/AAAAAAAAG4k/_EuCxkzS05cJZ8EZ2cgIQQVFTxHGeiRJwCLcB/s1600/Panther%2Bhits%2Bto%2Bglacis2%2B16.jpg<br /><br />http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/3/2074/thumb_620x2000/Panther_vs_Sherman.png11.png<br /><br /><br />what You don´t know are the proportions in relation to failures. And what You don´t know in absence of a mneaningful statistic analysis is how it does compare with other tanks.<br /> critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-56679132054654510662018-04-08T00:13:53.933-04:002018-04-08T00:13:53.933-04:00One plate shattered at Isigny huh.
"Tanks Nos...One plate shattered at Isigny huh.<br />"Tanks Nos. 1 and 3 (hereafter referred to as "average plate") cracked after relatively few hits."<br /><br />Cool reading comprehension bro.<br /><br />Also tank armour is not ballistic vest trauma plates; it's not supposed to fall apart doing its damn job and accordingly isn't even remotely as simple to replace... and crying about edge effect is meaningless when, as already mentioned, practically every single period tank design had its glacis plate integrity compromised by any number of cut-outs.<br />Yet by some wizardry most folks' plates seem to have failed to dramatically fall to pieces like that despite suffering from the selfsame handicap...Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-89083205806603091962018-04-07T16:24:12.298-04:002018-04-07T16:24:12.298-04:00Your insistence that German armour only cracks in ...Your insistence that German armour only cracks in this one test is also false. As usual, the British come to conclusions opposite of yours.<br /><br />https://i.imgur.com/d3NbYuE.pngPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-16404443503592988342018-04-07T15:49:25.348-04:002018-04-07T15:49:25.348-04:00I have provided you links and quotes from many stu...I have provided you links and quotes from many studies. The fact that you repeatedly ignore this evidence and harp on about how it's just my opinion (it isn't) from just one study (there are many) is what's pathetic here.<br /><br />You quoted a part of one document which says nothing about quality of the armour. This excerpt does not support your claim at all, yet you keep referring back to it as though it is some kind of holy grail of wisdom. You keep saying that you have all this amazing data, but you don't actually share any of it with us.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-38674996517800518802018-04-07T12:12:53.461-04:002018-04-07T12:12:53.461-04:00One plate shattered at Insigny, after many hits. A...One plate shattered at Insigny, after many hits. And the crack originated from a free edge effect. German armor was above specification quality -in average- than british MQ. I have posted the report which actually includes WAY MORE WARTIME DATA and it was of higher consistency, again, I have provided full quote. Your reliance of single, preselected trial, while not beeing able to provide the circumstances is just pathetic. But as always, Peter Samsonov does not understand what he is writing about, so no surprise here.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-78848570362489106722018-04-04T16:01:07.268-04:002018-04-04T16:01:07.268-04:00I'm sure whatever German inspectors passed tho...I'm sure whatever German inspectors passed those plates that outright shattered under 76 mm shell impacts in the aforementioned Anglo-American Isigny test also knew exactly what they were doing.<br />Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-714237427265573072018-04-04T15:53:14.636-04:002018-04-04T15:53:14.636-04:00https://i.imgur.com/76dKnxQ.png
Your defense is l...https://i.imgur.com/76dKnxQ.png<br /><br />Your defense is literally "alalalala I'm not listening". The British, American, and Soviet reports repeatedly call German armour inferior to their own. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-20137894720098281122018-04-04T14:52:41.689-04:002018-04-04T14:52:41.689-04:00What poor reistence? SUPP22/58 doesn´t state infer...What poor reistence? SUPP22/58 doesn´t state inferior resistence. I have quoted the excerpt. The ballistic limit was -in average- above british specification for this thickness. There is really little to choose from. German armor was exhibiting a resistence within the range of british MQ armor. How could that be inferior?<br />British report A.T. 252 (originally classified SECRET) doesn´t state "poor resistence" either for late ww2 AFV armour. Let me quote:<br />"8. The armour generally behaved in a manner similar to British machinable.<br />(...)<br />Conclusions<br />Unlike previous experiences with PANTHER tanks, the armour plates, with one exception (hull roof) did not show any marked tendency of brittleness, and their behaviour was not unlike British machinable quality plates.<br />(tab)<br />(...)<br />In this respect, certain success has been attained in this tank, as no major cracking or flaking was noticable on the plates liable to direct attack"<br /><br />German tests of british armour from Churchills left at the Dieppe raid 1942 showed that british MQ was similar in ballistic resistence to their own armor, albeit from less clean but higher alloyed steel and more variable in quality. <br /><br />And yes, the WAL authors couldn´t explain 1946 why the re-heat treated german 50mm plate exhibited a lower instead of the expected superior ballistic limit compared to the original plate, which was believed to be so "inferior" owing to a higher liability to crack under >cal attack and a noticably lower impact strength as measured by Charpy tool.<br />Charpy impact tests were still new in Britain (1932 adopted) and already old in Germany (1907 adopted), they knew exactly what they were doing.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-44763502360482654462018-04-04T13:07:22.290-04:002018-04-04T13:07:22.290-04:00Ah, right, so here's the "critical mass i...Ah, right, so here's the "critical mass is smarter than everyone else" argument. WAL doesn't understand metallurgy, the British don't understand metallurgy, the Soviets don't understand metallurgy, only critical mass understands metallurgy. Words like "inferior toughness" and "poor resistance" area meaningless, only opinion of the great critical mass matters.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-27998890402149833562018-04-04T02:39:39.873-04:002018-04-04T02:39:39.873-04:00Inferior toughness and inferior notched impact tes...Inferior toughness and inferior notched impact tests (IZOD or CHARPY) is not directly correlated with inferior ballistic resistence. You don´t comprehend these things. The british were crazy about impact toughness tests -which are physical tests, not ballistic tests- and yet WAL authors didn´t understood them.<br /><br />Tests on the BRUMMBÄR plates showed that improvements made on impact toughness did result in reduced(!) ballistic limits.<br />critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-58447066358092436802018-04-03T16:01:38.809-04:002018-04-03T16:01:38.809-04:00The Americans get in on the game too. Trials of Pz...The Americans get in on the game too. Trials of PzIII armour conclusions, WAL 710/435: "From the data obtained in this firing it is indicated that German armor of this type is inferior to American homogeneous armour of corresponding thickness". Trials of PzIV welded joints, WAL 710/608: "...welds with very poor resistance to ballistic shock or fatigue service". Both the PzIII and PzIV armour tests found that the content of alloying elements in the armour was incredibly high for its function, and yet the performance was worse than American steel anyway. <br /><br />Examination of Panther armour, WAL 710/750 : "Inferior toughness, as evidenced by brittle fractures and low impact resistance has been reported in several investigations of German armour that were 2" and greater in thickness"<br /><br />Another Panther report: WAL 710/715: "In several other investigations made by the British, it was found that the notched bar impact values of heavy German armor (2" and over) were considerably lower than that of comparable British armour". <br /><br />Your claim of "one report" falls flat on its face. All evidence points to the fact that, at the time, it was commonly accepted that German armour was inferior in quality to British, American, and Soviet armour. Again, this is not just my opinion, like you claim. The evidence is right there.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-51759166928626065432018-04-03T15:38:11.097-04:002018-04-03T15:38:11.097-04:00Also if you're looking at actual test data, he...Also if you're looking at actual test data, here's some:<br /><br />http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/05/german-steel-vs-soviet-steel.html<br />Conclusions: "the quality of the foreign armour is lower than domestic homogeneous armour."<br /><br />http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/02/pziii-armour.html<br />Conclusions: "The trials show that the brittleness of the German armour is due to its unsatisfactory characteristics."<br /><br />http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2017/11/panther-armour-quality.html<br />Conclusions: "Gun performance is appreciably better than forecast and it must be therefore be concluded that German plate is not up to the standard of our Homogeneous M.Q. tank armour."<br /><br />Over and over again, if is found that the quality of German armour is not up to Soviet or British standards. This is not "ONE document dealing with ONE trial" as you claim. This is a consistent pattern that reliably shows up across multiple trials of multiple vehicles over a large span of time.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-44541530190110127942018-04-03T14:09:15.048-04:002018-04-03T14:09:15.048-04:00Uniform quality does not mean good quality. Not on...Uniform quality does not mean good quality. Not only are you refusing to admit that the British analysis concluded that German armour was inferior, you are unable to come up with any evidence otherwise, despite claiming at great length to have all these documents that allegedly prove me wrong.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-83825864686416812852018-04-03T12:54:21.673-04:002018-04-03T12:54:21.673-04:00You used a direct quote from ONE document dealing ...You used a direct quote from ONE document dealing with ONE trial, hardly representative. It´s a rather particular case, selected to fit Your agenda.<br /><br />Direct quote from post war 1946 british document (SUPP22/58) which deals with all information on armor tests available in addition to intellegence gathered in occupied Germany on how they made armour:<br />(yes, a primary source which is more authoritative than Your single test in making conclusions)<br /><br />"SECTION II.<br />"It was concluded during the war from analysis and microscopical examination of captured armour that all, or nearly all of German armour was made from electric furnace steel.<br />(...)<br />At least 80 percent of their armour was made from electric furnace steel, and the remainder was high quality open hearth steel made by a process not used in this country (Duplex process). The German armour was, therefore, of more uniform quality than British steel, which, in so far as rolled armour was concerned, was made only to a small extent in electric furnaces, while the remainder was made in about equal proportions in acid and basic open hearth funraces using the ordinary process."<br /><br />-the british concluded post war that german armor was of more uniform quality than their own RHA.<br /><br />I can post excerpts of the reports. Yet, I will wait until You post my memo in the Heavy thread. It contained four images from US, russian and german ACTUAL test data (rather than calculated tabulations), even though You do not like the results.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-84579416625879797102018-04-02T16:13:55.246-04:002018-04-02T16:13:55.246-04:00>The british didn´t state german armor was infe...>The british didn´t state german armor was inferior.<br /><br />Direct quote from the document: "The material is therefore considered to be inferior to our I.T.70 plate."<br /><br />Post those tests then. You keep going on about how you have these endless troves of information, and yet somehow we never see any of it.<br /><br />I must have told you a dozen times by now: I didn't ban you from anything. I can't ban anyone from anything. There is simply no provision in Blogger to do so. If you don't believe me then make a new account and post from there. Or make your own blog and check the settings. I don't understand your conspiracy theory about how Google's spam filter has a personal vendetta against you.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-59390715357368654772018-04-02T12:59:27.199-04:002018-04-02T12:59:27.199-04:00The british didn´t state german armor was inferior...The british didn´t state german armor was inferior. A single test means nothing. After assesing all available tests to them, they were still uncertain. Some of the tested material was worse, some of it was similar, and some of it was better. <br />The only thing they believed the germans made a mistake in armor was in tempering it to create high levels of charpy impact toughness and crack resistence. They even went so far to cut a 50mm BRUMMBÄR side plate in two and reheat-treated one side to proove their point. In subsequent trials, the impact toughness of the reheated plate was indeed improved, but the firing trials showed that the original plate had a higher ballistic limit, leaving them speechless. <br /><br />Do You mind to explain why You banned me from posting in the Heavy thread just when I posted prooving ground data?<br /><br />critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-35303222838510785522018-04-02T09:16:24.578-04:002018-04-02T09:16:24.578-04:00cm mah boi, when your argument devolves into undil...cm mah boi, when your argument devolves into undiluted Ad Hominem like that it's time to step back and take a long hard look at what you're doing.<br />Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-21767448240738072552018-04-02T09:09:47.878-04:002018-04-02T09:09:47.878-04:00I'm not making the conclusions. The British ar...I'm not making the conclusions. The British are making the conclusions. These are their words verbatim, no matter how much you want to frame their conclusions as my opinion, it's not my words that state that German armour is inferior. You say "I have access to prooving ground data", so post it. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-30882166725508513002018-04-02T06:38:39.174-04:002018-04-02T06:38:39.174-04:00You preselect reports which fit Your agenda while ...You preselect reports which fit Your agenda while deciding deliberately to hide any information You encounter which doesn´t fit Your agenda. I have no opinion about german superiority. I have a strong opinion against selective perception when I come across it. Particularely when people who don´t understand what they write about try to sell their "findings" as truth. <br />You didn´t knew anything about austempered steel. You didn´t knew even under what conitions the sample was tested, yet You are too easy to jump to conclusions based upon an invalid sample.<br />critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-42324754622289443392018-03-30T07:57:37.080-04:002018-03-30T07:57:37.080-04:00Allow me to quote the August '44 Isigny test r...Allow me to quote the August '44 Isigny test report (https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/):<br /><br />"b. Wide variation was found in the quality of glacis plate on the three tanks. Tank No.2 (hereafter referred to as the "best plate") sustained 30 hits at ranges from 600 to 200 yards without cracking. Tanks Nos. 1 and 3 (hereafter referred to as "average plate") cracked after relatively few hits."<br /><br />That's two out of three tanks tested suffering structural failure of their main glacis under fire. Bloody well better not be indicative of the average already for the sake of the people crewing the tanks, but it certainly tells us the German industry was turning out - and the military accepting - some fairly alarming specimens.<br /><br />Not that having to settle for shoddy products for want of anything better was particularly unusual of or exceptional to them; at least three of the major combatant militaries (Soviet, German and Japanese) all had to cut an increasing number of corners just to keep enough reinforcements, supplies and replacements flowing to the frontline as the war ground on and losses added up. (The Soviets were at least in the position to partially change tack once the manpower reserves started running low; AFAIK their late-war tactics started increasingly converging on the Western "advance by fire" paradigm.)Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-17392254900681815402018-03-29T22:53:52.431-04:002018-03-29T22:53:52.431-04:00Yes, my selective citing of posting a direct quote...Yes, my selective citing of posting a direct quote from the British scientist analyzing the plate. That's the difference between you and me. I don't pretend to have divined the true nature of the universe. My analysis relies on what is written in the report. It is the opinion of the British scientists that the German armour is inferior to theirs. However, your opinion about German superiority is just that: opinion. The people with the plates in their possession that went out and did the tests come to a completely opposite conclusion than to yours. Not just in this case, every time. And yet for some reason you disagree, despite having none of the resources that they did.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.com