Sort of. What I'm saying is that in many cases the German testing produced better product when it came to combat equipment. They took certain things much more seriously than other Nations, which led to tactical information and improvements that helped their guys in the field a great deal.
For example - the British examined armor construction techniqes of captured German AFVs. The Germans did this and actually tested for 'block series' flawed armor. This let them know things like '41 series T-34s could be damaged/'mission killed' by big HE rounds (armor plate used in '41 series T-34s was rampant with casting faults), but KV-1s could not (not due to armor thickness, but armor quality of KV-1 plate was better than T-34 in '41).
I think it was a misunderstanding between you and I - I totally agree about the difference between what the Germans considered a 'penetration' and what other Nations did. This extended to combat aircraft by the way - German pilot armor was '.50 proof' on some aircraft, which actually meant it wouldn't fail to .50 BMG fire, period. The British considered some late war Spitfires to be '20mm proof' from the rear in certain areas. But by their definitions, the Germans would have called it '20mm resistant'.
The test data for the Germans was of better quality is some cases, from what I have seen. This mainly dealt with armor penertation, armor, etc. And in some cases mentioned above, like when comparing Russian captured aircraft data to the real thing. The Germans had a vast network with the purpose of recovering downed Allied aircraft and rebuilding them to 'combat ready' standards, for use in testing and also for 'special operations' type applications (SB-2s flying technicians out of Stalingrad in the face of Russian air superiority, etc.).
Basically, someone said that German testing could not be trusted. In general it certainly could, and in some (mainly gun/armor) cases it could be trusted more than other Nation's testing.
The U.S. tested the 75L38 of the early Shermans and the 76L51 of the M10 vs. captured German AFVs. But they did the majority of these tests in the U.S.A., using new ammunition. The actual ammunition being used overseas was of lesser quality. The result was U.S. AFV crews having flawed 'tactical intelligence data' during '42 and '43. When the Germans tested AFV weapons, they fired 'issue' ammunition in all cases, which gave very realistic/applicable results. That's just one example of several.
To sum up - there's no reason LW or German factory test data should not be trusted (contraty to what some have implied). However, I do believe that if the data on a test doesn't match AH, it's almost certainly not a case of 'bad data' being used for the AH FMs. Sometimes I think the limitations of PC code limits accuracy of FM a little, and I also think that sometimes the AH guys have several sources, some of which are not available to the players. I've seen that same group of guys fix FM problems when they were shown to exist. If there's a problem with the D-9, it will eventually be addressed (if it can be).
Some examples of 'FM bugs' I distinctly recall the HTC guys 'finding and fixing':
WB: F6F flaps were not generating proper drag. Error found and fixed (think about that - they pegged that the F6F was keeping E too well when maneuvering in the vertical with flaps deployed...).
WB: P-38 propwash was 'too powerful', giving the P-38J too much rudder authority when fighting in the vertical at low speeds (alot of 'P-38 aces' in WB sucked after this was fixed eheheh). Think about that one as well...nailing down that the P-38 rudder was working too well at low speed, in the vertical, etc.
Pretty esoteric problems to track down in my opinion.
Having said all that, I'll tell you that emailing data and FM questions is the way to go. Avoid the whole BBS argument altogether. If your data is good, and you present it well, and there really is a problem it will eventually get fixed in my opinion. Posting it to (any) BBS is always going to get a negative reaction from some.
Mike/wulfie
(edit) p.s. Naudet - I think the best way to put it is that in some cases (mainly gun/armor) German testing was of a higher standard. The comment that Fw tests are certainly 'skewed' to look better to win aircraft contracts flies in the face of everything known about the WW2 German aviation industry.
