Best/Favourate Tank in the west - Page 36 - Aircraft of World War II

Soren · 06-12-2009, 10:21 PM

I am exceedingly curious as to how ANYONE by looking at a tank full of holes could establish both the range at which each hit was made and then exactly which one out of all the hits that knocked out the tank. Alone this impossibility makes the whole statistic worth nothing at all, and that is all I am trying to get at here, I'm not trying to advocate any tank, so you might as-well get that thought out of your head right away.

But I guess I might as-well give up as it's impossible to reason with people like Juha & m_kenny. You two can go ahead and believe in what'ever you want, I'm not gonna waste anymore of my time on this.

m kenny · 06-12-2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

If you were to find a tank sitting burned out with 4 holes in it, all clean penetrations, then you'd have no, and I repeat, NO way of finding out at what range the tank was hit at, which hit knocked out the tank or which one set it ablaze.

Correct.
However if you find a burnt out Tiger with 5 failed penetrations and 4 holes in it then you can say that this Tiger needed 9 hits to despatch it.
If you find 10 wrecked Tigers with 58 failed penetrations and 22 holes between them then you can say that ON AVERAGE each Tiger suffered 8 hits.
That each Tiger ON AVERAGE needed 2.2 penetrations to knock it out.
That each Tiger ON AVERAGE had 5.8 failed penetrations
If 5 unburnt Tigers had 9 penetrations and 5 burnt out Tigers had 13 penetrations then you can say:
It took 1.8 hits to knock out a Tiger
It took 2.6 hits to make a Tiger burn.
NOTE: All numbers picked at random for illustrative purposes only.

That should show you, or more realistically show the unbiased reader, that:

1.) Range
2.) Angle & location of impact
3.) Weapon used
4.) Time of impact

have absolutely no bearing on a survey aimed solely at finding THE AVERAGE number of hits needed to knock out a tank/make it burn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

I am exceedingly curious as to how ANYONE by looking at a tank full of holes could establish both the range at which each hit was made and then exactly which one out of all the hits that knocked out the tank

If you show me the section where any of the above are claimed in this survey then you might have a case. As it stands this is a classic Straw Man argument.

The survey showed it took only 2.5 hits to KO a Panther and 4.2 to KO a Tiger. This news does not sit well with one who believed it took more than 10 hits to do the same. The follwing was even advanced as an exemplar:

Take for example all the times that Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired

Who now would dare vouchsafe such a scenario?

Your nitpicking arguments Lack validity or essence. In a word your whole case is spurious!

Soren · 06-13-2009, 01:59 AM

Keep the excuses coming m_kenny but I'm not the one with a spurious case here, that would be you.

You keep confusing hits with penetrations, there's a big difference between the two.

In your own typothetical example it doesn't take 2.6 hits to KO the tank, it takes 2.6 penetrations! Big difference!

If you honestly believe that it one average took 4.2 hits to KO a Tiger then I say you lack even a basic sense of logic, esp. seeing that Tigers often were hit many times during battle to no effect. There's even an incident in which one got hit 246 times, yet it kept on fighting!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 06-13-2009, 02:17 AM

Keep it nice you two...

I hear the beach calling.

parsifal · 06-13-2009, 03:03 AM

Guys.....how about just debating the topic, and not trying to go at each other incessantly. Soren is a great believer in German Tank technology....good for him. Kenny present arguments to refute that position....good for him too. I suggest you just present your respective cases, and just respectfully agree to disagree on those points you cannot reach agreement on. It will be us, the readers that decide, in our own minds, what to think

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 06-13-2009, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsifal

Guys.....how about just debating the topic, and not trying to go at each other incessantly. Soren is a great believer in German Tank technology....good for him. Kenny present arguments to refute that position....good for him too. I suggest you just present your respective cases, and just respectfully agree to disagree on those points you cannot reach agreement on. It will be us, the readers that decide, in our own minds, what to think

Spoken like a wise man...

Juha · 06-13-2009, 03:59 AM

Hello m kenny
I wasn’t surprise that Upper Glacis was 1:7, rather hopeless target to Allied guns
or that mantlet and turret front was 2:2 it was the weakest point of Panther’s frontal armour which was usually in sight
etc.

Juha

Soren · 06-13-2009, 04:09 AM

Parsifal,

I'm not trying to advocate any tank here, I'm just pointing out how the statistic m_kenny presented is completely inaccurate and useless, and so for a good number of reasons.

Now had he instead presented actual field testing results then there'd be nothing to complain about, cause then all the parameters are known.

The whole argument started because someone mentioned how easily the Sherman lit up if hit (not that guys fault btw). I then explained that it wasn't because of poor design as some people suggest, but probably more due to the type of AP rounds the German were using.

M_kenny then flung out his statistic where it is stated that it on average it took X amount of "hits" to knock out or lit up a tank. Problem is that not all "hits" penetrate the armour or do any serious damage, esp. not if the power of the attacking weapon is insufficient.

He then went on claiming that I didn't like the statistic because it showed that it only took 2.6 hits to KO a Panther, but that I missed that only roughly every 8th hit penetrated the front glacis plate. Problem with that however is that most Allied guns could nothing but dent the front glacis plate of the Panther, so 8 hits from one of these would never result in a penetration. And the guns which could penetrate the Panther' glacis were few and far in between plus only capable at close ranges. M_kenny's statistic however would suggest otherwise, and that's because it obviously neither takes the engagement range, type of weapon or angle of impact into consideration.

Juha · 06-13-2009, 04:49 AM

Soren
In Commonwealth forces, IMHO 17pdr had best chances penetrate the upper glacis of Panther and in Summer 44:
AT Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 17-pdr and 4 × 6-pdr in 3 troops.
AT Regiments in Armoured divs had 24 x 17pdr towed plus 24 x 17pdr SP (Achilles and also Archers later on) plus of course the Fireflies in ArmRgts. There were A/T guns also in other units in div but not 17pdr guns but both could also have attached units, so not so few in British sector where most panzers were. And 6pdr could easily penetrate through side armours of German tanks and StuGs but Tigers.

Juha

Doughboy · 06-13-2009, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsifal

Guys.....how about just debating the topic, and not trying to go at each other incessantly. Soren is a great believer in German Tank technology....good for him. Kenny present arguments to refute that position....good for him too. I suggest you just present your respective cases, and just respectfully agree to disagree on those points you cannot reach agreement on. It will be us, the readers that decide, in our own minds, what to think

Great post.

m kenny · 06-13-2009, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

He then went on claiming that I didn't like the statistic because it showed that it only took 2.6 hits to KO a Panther, but that I missed that only roughly every 8th hit penetrated the front glacis plate. Problem with that however is that most Allied guns could nothing but dent the front glacis plate of the Panther, so 8 hits from one of these would never result in a penetration..

Large numbers of knocked out Panthers that have no hits AT ALL on the glacis?(warning: not all hits were on the fron). The high failure rate of glacis hits has no effect on the 87% of hits on the SIDES or BACK of the tank.
I just took a quick look through Zaloga's Panzers In The Gunsights I/II and US Tank Battles in France noticed that most of the panther hulks hadn't even a dent in the front.
Here are the clearer examples.

m kenny · 06-13-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

You keep confusing hits with penetrations, there's a big difference between the two.
In your own typothetical example it doesn't take 2.6 hits to KO the tank, it takes 2.6 penetrationsBig difference!

Read it again:
If you find 10 wrecked Tigers with 58 failed penetrations and 22 holes between them then you can say that ON AVERAGE each Tiger suffered 8 hits.
However in the hypethetical instance I chose I did slip and write 2.6 hits instead of 2.6 penetrations.
Never said I was perfect!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

If you honestly believe that it one average took 4.2 hits to KO a Tiger then I say you lack even a basic sense of logic,

The men on the ground who inspected the wrecks checked the actual number of penetrations/failures per tank (i.e holes/gouges) Are you saying they lied?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

If esp. seeing that Tigers often were hit many times during battle to no effect. There's even an incident in which one got hit 246 times, yet it kept on fighting!

Perhaps you could tell us the calibre of the hits. I believe the vast majority were small A/T rifle strikes. You do have that information I presume?
There are other 'incidents' where 1 hit destroyed a Tiger. (examples available upon request)What does that prove?

Where are the '10 hits' on these real life knocked out examples from sSS Pz Abt 101?
Top pic of Tiger '334' knocked out in Rauray 27/6/44
next '214' destroyed by the Poles in August '44
Lastly another Tiger (114) from 27/6/44. Taken frontaly by a troop of 75mm Shermans and thus subject to intense close range fire from multiple sources. Even this text book example of frontal attack only has 8 hits on the front, one of which partialy penetrated in through the drivers visor

Juha · 06-13-2009, 10:02 AM

Hello
Normandy was an excellent place to that kind of OR because almost all, say 95%, of heavier German AFVs, those from Marders, incl, upwards committed to the battle were lost there. IIRC not a single Tiger recrossed Seine but maybe a few recovered early in the battle for reconstruction/factory level repairs in Germany. So they were at least in theory available for research. And there were ca 2500 of them according to Zaloga.

Juha

m kenny · 06-13-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello
IIRC not a single Tiger recrossed Seine but maybe a few recovered early in the battle for reconstruction/factory level repairs in Germany..

I used to believe that. However recent discoveries have shown a few made it. The numbers are very small (half a dozen?) Not enough to make any difference to anything.

Juha · 06-13-2009, 01:56 PM

Hello m kenny
Thanks for correction.

Juha

View Poll Results: Whats is the Best/your favourate tank from in North Africa
Cruiser MKIV	2	1.40%
A12 Matilda II	8	5.59%
Crusader Cruiser	1	0.70%
Valentine MKIII	3	2.10%
A22 Churchill	5	3.50%
Cromwell	6	4.20%
M3 Grant	5	3.50%
M4 Sherman	17	11.89%
M10	1	0.70%
M 13/40	2	1.40%
PzKpfw IIF	0	0%
PzKpfw III	3	2.10%
Pzkpfw IV	24	16.78%
PzKpfw VI (Tiger )	59	41.26%
StuG III	7	4.90%
Voters: 143. You may not vote on this poll

06-12-2009, 10:21 PM	#526
Soren Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,625	I am exceedingly curious as to how ANYONE by looking at a tank full of holes could establish both the range at which each hit was made and then exactly which one out of all the hits that knocked out the tank. Alone this impossibility makes the whole statistic worth nothing at all, and that is all I am trying to get at here, I'm not trying to advocate any tank, so you might as-well get that thought out of your head right away. But I guess I might as-well give up as it's impossible to reason with people like Juha & m_kenny. You two can go ahead and believe in what'ever you want, I'm not gonna waste anymore of my time on this. Last edited by Soren; 06-12-2009 at 10:46 PM.

06-13-2009, 01:59 AM	#528
Soren Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,625	Keep the excuses coming m_kenny but I'm not the one with a spurious case here, that would be you. You keep confusing hits with penetrations, there's a big difference between the two. In your own typothetical example it doesn't take 2.6 hits to KO the tank, it takes 2.6 penetrations! Big difference! If you honestly believe that it one average took 4.2 hits to KO a Tiger then I say you lack even a basic sense of logic, esp. seeing that Tigers often were hit many times during battle to no effect. There's even an incident in which one got hit 246 times, yet it kept on fighting! Last edited by Soren; 06-13-2009 at 02:14 AM.

06-13-2009, 02:17 AM	#529
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 34,732	Keep it nice you two... I hear the beach calling. __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

06-13-2009, 03:03 AM	#530
parsifal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 2,633	Guys.....how about just debating the topic, and not trying to go at each other incessantly. Soren is a great believer in German Tank technology....good for him. Kenny present arguments to refute that position....good for him too. I suggest you just present your respective cases, and just respectfully agree to disagree on those points you cannot reach agreement on. It will be us, the readers that decide, in our own minds, what to think __________________ "the final argument of Kings" - Inscription on French artillery, by order of Louis XIV "The secret to success for any army is simplicity" Napoleon Bonaparte

06-13-2009, 03:59 AM	#532
Juha Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki Posts: 1,641	Hello m kenny I wasn’t surprise that Upper Glacis was 1:7, rather hopeless target to Allied guns or that mantlet and turret front was 2:2 it was the weakest point of Panther’s frontal armour which was usually in sight etc. Juha

06-13-2009, 04:09 AM	#533
Soren Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,625	Parsifal, I'm not trying to advocate any tank here, I'm just pointing out how the statistic m_kenny presented is completely inaccurate and useless, and so for a good number of reasons. Now had he instead presented actual field testing results then there'd be nothing to complain about, cause then all the parameters are known. The whole argument started because someone mentioned how easily the Sherman lit up if hit (not that guys fault btw). I then explained that it wasn't because of poor design as some people suggest, but probably more due to the type of AP rounds the German were using. M_kenny then flung out his statistic where it is stated that it on average it took X amount of "hits" to knock out or lit up a tank. Problem is that not all "hits" penetrate the armour or do any serious damage, esp. not if the power of the attacking weapon is insufficient. He then went on claiming that I didn't like the statistic because it showed that it only took 2.6 hits to KO a Panther, but that I missed that only roughly every 8th hit penetrated the front glacis plate. Problem with that however is that most Allied guns could nothing but dent the front glacis plate of the Panther, so 8 hits from one of these would never result in a penetration. And the guns which could penetrate the Panther' glacis were few and far in between plus only capable at close ranges. M_kenny's statistic however would suggest otherwise, and that's because it obviously neither takes the engagement range, type of weapon or angle of impact into consideration. Last edited by Soren; 06-13-2009 at 04:14 AM.

06-13-2009, 04:49 AM	#534
Juha Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki Posts: 1,641	Soren In Commonwealth forces, IMHO 17pdr had best chances penetrate the upper glacis of Panther and in Summer 44: AT Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 17-pdr and 4 × 6-pdr in 3 troops. AT Regiments in Armoured divs had 24 x 17pdr towed plus 24 x 17pdr SP (Achilles and also Archers later on) plus of course the Fireflies in ArmRgts. There were A/T guns also in other units in div but not 17pdr guns but both could also have attached units, so not so few in British sector where most panzers were. And 6pdr could easily penetrate through side armours of German tanks and StuGs but Tigers. Juha Last edited by Juha; 06-13-2009 at 04:52 AM.

06-13-2009, 10:02 AM	#538
Juha Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki Posts: 1,641	Hello Normandy was an excellent place to that kind of OR because almost all, say 95%, of heavier German AFVs, those from Marders, incl, upwards committed to the battle were lost there. IIRC not a single Tiger recrossed Seine but maybe a few recovered early in the battle for reconstruction/factory level repairs in Germany. So they were at least in theory available for research. And there were ca 2500 of them according to Zaloga. Juha

06-13-2009, 01:56 PM	#540
Juha Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki Posts: 1,641	Hello m kenny Thanks for correction. Juha

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode