Jump to content

SadSack

Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About SadSack

  • Birthday 07/13/1961

Converted

  • Location
    California
  • Interests
    PC Wargaming
  • Occupation
    Sales

SadSack's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Have only been playing Talonsofts CS games and modes as of late. Just recently Matrix games has aquired the rights to the Campaign Series games originally done by Talonsoft. I have a number of questions about their armor values given in the game. It wasn't to hard to figure out how the original Talonsoft designers came up with those armor values. My formula gets me within about 1.5% overall of their values. However just like my formula. Their formula must be flawed also. These formulas are not taking into account bhn or the T/D ( thickness to diameter ) ratios. These are two very important factors that should be considered passing out values. Tanks like the U.K. Churchill MK.VII's and VIII's would get much more realistic protection values than Talonsofts boys originally gave them. I've gotten those numbers raised from 17 to 21 up at the front with the latest update for the West Front game. But if armor quality ( bhn ) and T/D ratios ( thickness of armor as compared with avr. diameter of attacking AP shot ) were to be factored in. Those Churchills protection values would most certainly climb again. IMO this would get things much more realistic as to how hard they were to actually knock out. It sounds as though the Combat Mission game probably simulates that better than the Campaign Series game at this time. I have the attention of a few people right now. Hopefully they will allow me and some others to get that sorted out and corrected before Matrix puts out their new and updated versions of the Campaign Series out there to the public.
  2. Most if not all Sherman tank varients had a 2" smoke mortar built into the tanks turret front. Supply of 2" smoke varied from as low as 12 rounds for an M4(105)Sherman, All the way up to 27 rounds for the Firefly VC. Also noticed the U.K. Achilles Tank Destroyer had this smoke mortar along with 36 rounds ! My question is. Were these internaly mounted smoke mortars used to provide those tanks with a smoke screen of some sorts in an emergency situation ? ...
  3. Hi roqf77 Actually I don't feel our opinions are really that way off. Infact I've been an advocate for getting the frontal protection of the Churchill MK.VII and MK.VIII tanks increased in the Talonsoft CS games. They have had a protection value of 17 for years and years. Thru my work I've gotten the mode designers whom I've worked closely with to increase it's value to a 20. The Jumbo's have had a frontal protection value of 26 all this time. Only out done by the King Tiger with a value of 36 and the Jagdtiger with a value of 48. The Panther and Pershing have values of 21. And the Tiger I has a value of 16 by comparison. The Jumbo's were built to be invulnerable frontally to the German L/56 88mm as found on the Tiger also. Could the 88 defeat the Jumbo's turret from close range ? .. Maybe ? .. But it would have to be real close ! Could a Panthers Gun penetrate a Jumbo's hull ? .. It would have to be real close also. I'm not talking about 500 meters being close. I'm talking about 100 and 200 meters here. A Churchills hull front was flat out more vulnerable to any type shot than a Jumbo's. As far as the L/71 88mm .. That gun is a monster, And was far less likely to be encountered than all other types of German AT guns. Yes it could defeat the Jumbo's hull much further out than all other guns. I'm fairly certain those test with the 17pdr's against the Panthers hull were done firing it's standard AP shot that was quite deadly in it's own right. It's my understanding, The SVDS hyper shot did not perform particuarily well against the 80mm thick, sharply sloped ( 55 degrees glacius ) of the Panther. Yeh sure .. We can move onto a different subject. It's been a nice debate non the less.
  4. Hi roqf77 I want to first start of by mentioning that you keep refering to the German armor plate being of a higher standard or hardness in comparison with American armor plate. That would only be correct if you were talking about pre 1944 German armor plating or about the armor plating found on a Tiger I tank. It is common knowledge that the quality and or the hardness of German armor plating took an absolute nose dive from early 1944 onwards. It was either way to brittle by US standards or way to soft. A captured Jagdpanther even yeilded a bhn of only 210 on the face plate ! .. In all actuality the overall armor quality and relative hardness was better on the US and UK tanks from mid 1944 and onwards. Only in the case of the Tiger I tanks did they keep their original high standards of quality and hardness. About the others, It's just a flat out myth. The quality of the armor plating that Jumbo would have to punch thru would likely not even be as good as theirs!!! And I repeat. Thick frontal armor plating that was also well sloped, as was the case with the Jumbo was very difficult for AP shot to overcome. It's not as simple as one two three and look at a penetration table for results there. There are other ballistic matters to take into consideration. Between the Jumbo and the Churchill MK.VII Turret protection was close frontally. But I would still give the edge to the Jumbo. Just take a look a that gun mantlet. And an absolutly huge edge for the Jumbos side and rear walls of the turret. Overall ? .. Big edge to Jumbo Hull frontal protection is clearly in the favor of the Jumbo. It's obvious that standard German AP shot would have major difficulties trying to penetrate either one of these tanks. The Huge advantage for the Jumbo that its armor on the hull was both thick and sloped. The Germans did have some APCR shot. But really on the western front they did not need them as badly as they did on the eastern front, Where heavier armor was much more likely to be encountered. APCR shot performed poorly against well sloped surfaces and awsome against armor set at the vertical. The Jumbos armor was reasonably well sloped on the hull and the Churchills was not at all it was set at the vertical ! ..
  5. With numbers like 250 vehicals destroyed by Pool. It's as though it seems his tank must have come up on a few unguarded German motor pools and just started destroying everything. 250 vehicals destroyed ? .. I doubt German tank crew even bothered keeping track of their truck kills This is not to knock on Pools record either
  6. I'm pleasing to see two fellas can have a good discussion on this subject. I rolled in those numbers of mine previously to simply check effectiveness based on your bhn numbers and to see though this discussion in some manner. However the bhn numbers simply do not work in the fashion that I did it. It would be like saying a Tiger I's large 110mm thick gun shield was just as much if not more effective at resisting an incoming AP shot as the massive 178mm thick gun shield on the Jumbo based almost soley on bhn?. That is what would happen if we tried to factor in bhn. And that would be flat out ridiculous. It simply does not work out that simple. I think the armor calculators do factor in for slope well and can only try to emulate chance of deflection. If an incoming 88mm AP shot comes strait at and smacks right into a 152mm thick vertical plate. It's going to dig as deep a hole as possible into it. On the other hand. If that same 88mm AP shot hits the 102mm thick upper glacius of the Jumbo thats angled at 47 degress from the vertical, it's going to very likely richochette becouse the size of the 88mm shot is overcomed by the thickness of the 102mm plate coupled with the angle of that plate. The 88mm AP shot simply does not have enough energy to overcome that. On the other hand, If that 88mm AP shot were to strike a standard Sherman glacius that only had 62mm thickness. Becouse of the diameter of the 88mm shot and the area that it was directly applying that force/energy over was less thick 62mm. That AP shot would have a far greater chance of getting to dig in and punch a hole strait thru a standard Sherman. Infact it would easily from 800 yards. But one look at what those 88mm hits did to that Jumbo's glacius from 800 yards tells and shows the big picture as to what I'm talking about here. Those hits were from dead strait on, and they are mere dents and scratches on those Jumbos faceplates. That is becouse the shell even flying in from just 800 yards away could not overcome the thickness combined with the angle of the plate. Those German 88's were clearly light years away from doing any damage to the faceplates of either Jumbo. However the hits that struck those Jumbos huge 178mm thick gun mantle did not look to take the least travel of resistance and richochette. What those 88mm AP shots did was leave some huge deep holes in those Jumbo's gun mantlets. And that was all becouse the gun mantlets are set at the vertical. There was no place for those AP shots to go but strait forward. That is the same effect those 88mm shots would have had on a Churchill MK. VII front, Top to bottom ! .. IMO and becouse of layout .. I would still say a Jumbo's turret offered better protection for the crew. And as for the upper and lower hulls. No comparison there IMO. Infact not even close. A huge advantage for the Jumbo
  7. I have taken another and rather simplistic approach to this discussion about which tank may have been tougher. The U.K. Churchill MK VII or the U.S. M4A3E2 Jumbo .. We for the moment will just consider the frontal protection of both tanks. I will also take into consideration the bhn of the steel for either tank. I will approach it from the perspective that the bhn of the steel will directly relate one for one with the overall effectiveness of each tank. M4A3E2 Jumbo Turret front - 152mm at 12 degrees = 157.713mm effective. bhn is 220 Gun Mantlet - 178mm at 0 degrees = 178.00mm effective. bhn is 250 ( they were 79mm plates welded togather. Upper hull - 102mm at 47 degrees = 193.278mm effective. bhn is 250 Lower hull or Transmission cover varied. But as follows. Upper most - 114mm at 47 degrees = 216.016 effective Upper middle - 127mm at 47 degrees = 240.65mm effective Upper lowest - 140mm at 47 degrees = 265.83mm effective The rounded nose - 140mm at 0 degrees = 140mm effective Lower upper - 140mm at 56 degrees = 369.573mm effective lower lowest - 114mm at 56 degrees = 300.938mm effective I will now average what we have for the Jumbo's turret and upper and lower hulls. Turret average is 167.8565mm effective with an average bhn of 235 Upper and lower hull averages combined is 246.612mm effective with an average bhn of 235 -------------------------------------------------- Churchill MK. VII Turret front - 152mm at 0 degrees = 152mm effective. bhn is 315 Upper hull - 152mm at 0 degrees = 152mm effective. bhn is 315 Lower hull - 140mm at 0 degrees = 140mm effective. bhn is 315 Turret effective average is 152mm with a 315 bhn Upper and Lower hull effective average is 146mm with a 315 bhn. -------------------------------------------------- So with the Churchills 315 bhn being a full 34% more than that found on the Jumbo. I'll for arguments sake calculate the Jumbo's armor as 34% less than what I calculated. Jumbo's Turret front overall = 110.7852mm effect. Churchill's Turret front overall = 152mm effect. Jumbo's Hull front overall = 162.764mm effective Churchill's Hull front overall = 146mm effective With this generous style of trying to figure out which tank may have been tougher. I think I have been more than willing to try and see your point about the Churchill. I do not see that the bhn had as great an effect than I have actually given it. But I have done done it none the less. If this were truely the way to calculate effectiveness based also on bhn. I'd have to say that the Churchill's turret front was the clear winner. But on the flip side, The Jumbo's upper and lower hulls would win. But aside from that. And all what degrees of slope due to change a tanks overall effectiveness. It also promotes shot deflection. Where as vertical set armor does not. The 47 degree slope of the Jumbo's hull would cause an incoming shot that struck it to waste alot of it's energy trying to overcome that slope. Where as the Churchill did not have that effect on an incoming round. This makes an absolutly huge difference weather or not a shot will even have a chance to penetrate. A Jumbo's frontal hull area was almost completely invulnerable to any German AT weapon firing standard AP shot. ( except for Pak 43 88mm L/71 ) And the German APCR shot much like the US HVAP shot, did not perform particularily well against thick sloped surfaces. That is what the Jumbo had. The Churchill did thick plate. But it was all set at the vertical ! .. A German APCR shot was tailored made to defeat thick vertical plate. So even though I really like the Churchill myself. It just does not seem to me that it could hold up to AT fire as well as the Jumbo. The one big advantage I'd give to the Churchill was it's lower profile or silluette. BTU roqf77
  8. OK .. There's no problem with having different views roqf77. To answer your questions : 1. I can't believe for a second that the USA had any real shortage of steel as you stated. It's my understanding that the USA out produced all other combative nations combined !! .. If there was really a case to be made about shortages. I figure they could have built a few less barges and built more Jumbo's hahahaha 2. There was a small issue with transport I believe. It had to do with what the shipyard cranes were rated to lift. Pershings and Jumbos being a bit to heavy for them. But as we can see. They found some way to load them up and ship them over !! The only shame about the Jumbo tank, was that they did not build them in mass. They also could have built some with 17pdr guns and the HVSS suspension setup. All the stuff was there for the taking and would drop right in. A tank like this could have been introduced alot sooner than the Pershing, And actually could have had a far greater impact against German armor IMO.
  9. I kinda like those late model Churchills too. They were defianetly tough. But their turret armor positively was not 152mm thick on all sides! .. Even the site you passed earlier at www.onwar.com has its frontal turret thickness at 152mm and the sides and rear thickness at 95mm?.. Those numbers are mot wrong either. The hull was 140mm thick and the superstructure is at 152mm thick. A the hull sides were at 57mm thick. all this armor was set at the vertical too. These figures fall right in line with all other reliable sources I have seen. I never heard anything different. What was your source of information on that 152mm thickness all around for the Churchill? ... the Churchill MK VII's and VIII's were very tough just like the Jumbo. But even if the bhn were to be factored in. Still not as tough as a Jumbo. The Jumbo offered far better protection on the most exposed area of the tank, The turret. The front armor of the Jumbo was both thick and well sloped. Churchills was very thick but no slope and did not promote deflection nearly as much as the Jumbo. I still give advantage to the Jumbo there too. And it's side armor is not quite as thick as the Jumbo's. I would be curious to the defense factors the CM game has given to these two tanks? ... Lets say either one is under attack from a German Tiger I tank from a range of 750 yards. I wonder what tank would have a better chance of survival in the CM game? The designers for Campaign Series turn based games done by Talonsoft, Felt the Jumbo was more than a bit tougher too. Those fellas really did their research and that is one reason those CS turned based games are considered one of the all time great PC wargames. maybe it's not your cup of tea. But you should check them out sometime. Also as a flash news piece. It looks as though Matrix games has just purchased all the rights to those old Talonsoft games !
  10. Yes stoat thats correct .. But for the sake of the conversation we were having and that the site as to where roqf77 got his info. They stated 90 degrees for the trans cover. The site had the slope backwards. It obviously does not have an infinate slope. But rather o degrees at the nose which was actually rounded. Also the cover has no place where the slope is at 34 degrees. But on the lower portion of the cover it's at 56 degrees just like any other sherman model. The numbers used at the site used for slope were backwards for some reason ?
  11. The 90 degrees does infact represents no slope. But have you ever looked at the transmission cover on a Sherman ? .. If you do or have. That 90 degrees only accounts for the area at the very tip of the nose of that transmission cover. That tip is actually rounded and only accounts for a fraction of the overall area of the transmission cover. The 34 degrees is for the slope taken from the opposite angle. From the perspective that we would be looking at it head on. It is 56 degrees set back from the vertical. That 56 degree acounts for the area just below the rounded tip of the nose they are saying is at 90 degrees ? ( in theore correct. But it's misleading in some ways )while the upper portion of that transmission cover below the face plate was set at 47 degrees just like the Shermans face plate. That armor went from 140mm thick and gradually reduced to 114mm thick at the top. So half way up the upper portion of that transmission cover it was bassically 127mm thickness set at 47 degrees. Were as those heavily armored MK VII and VIII Churchilles had 152mm thickness set at the vertical completely " top to bottom " ! .. Those Churchills did not have 152mm thickness all around as with the Jumbos. Their thickness was less than 100mm on the side of the turret. Still very good though. I agree in terms of a firefight the Jumbo was no match for the King Tiger. The Tigers gun was absolutly awsome and it's frontal armor equally so. The Jumbo would need to get a shot to the Tigers side. The King Tiger could deal with a Jumbo frontally. But not a long range. And more than likely it would have to be on the short end of medium range or even close range. Penetration tables for guns no matter how good they might be, don't allways show the whole picture. Just on an added note. The Campaign Series games give currently give these tanks the following armor protection values. JagdTiger front - 48 side - 12 rear - 12 King Tiger front - 36 side - 12 rear - 12 Tiger I front - 16 side - 10 rear - 10 Panther front - 21 side - 8 rear - 7 Jumbo front - 26 side - 14 rear - 12 Pershing front - 21 side - 9 rear - 9 M4(76)W front - 9 side - 5 rear - 5 Churchill MK VII & VIII front - 17 side - 11 rear - 7 IS-2 front - 20 side - 13 rear - 12 IS-2m front - 30 side - 13 rear - 12 KV-1 M42 front - 16 side - 11 rear - 9 T34/85 front - 12 side - 8 rear - 7 Using my own formula, I had come up with numbers extremely close to the values Talonsofts designers originaly gave these tanks. actually exact in most cases. However I believe the Churchill MK VII's and VIII's were shorted a bit.( it should have been more like 20 for the frontal value ) This will be changed with up and coming expansion disc. I wanted the Tiger I's values increased by at least 10% to 15% to reflect the excellent materials/metals used in its armor construction. The best in the whole war!. That has not been decided on yet. IMO the IS-2 should have had a frontal protection value of 23 instead of 20 and the IS-2m's a value of 27 instead of 30. No decissions on that as yet. And I'm not really pushing for it either. The Jumbos factored to a 30 frontal value and not a 26 as the original designers had it. That will be up dated with the project disc. Alot of new equipement will appear on these updates including M4(76)W Shermans with applique armor kits, The rare Sherman Crocodille tanks and even the T26E4-1 Super Pershing !
  12. As far as bhn of the US tanks, I'm pretty certain it was greater than 250 on the average. I have read previously somewhere that the Jumbo's turrets were cast with fairly soft. But just taking a good look at the photos of those two destroyed Jumbo's. It's turret easily handled those hits to it's turret by those 88mm gun. The Jumbo turrets were cast with 6 inch thick walls on " all "" sides. The gun mantlet was a completely seperate piece and is not factored in any way with the front turret thickness. The Jumbo's mantlets were very large and thick. It included an extremely thick band around the base of the gun and the mantlet so as to make it very difficult to take the gun out of action from a hit there. It was not completely uncommon for guns to be taken out with hits in that area. As far as calculating both the Gun mantlets armor and turret front armor togather. That would be incorrect, exept only in the case if an incoming shot were to hit the very most outer edges of the gun mantlets head on. In that case they might have to also travel thru a portion of the turret fronts armor. Otherwise and in the case of both the Panther and Jumbo, There was a large opening in the front of the turret. This was to provide an area for the tanks gun to be mounted. For the most part the only protection offered to the tanks gun mechanism's and crew inside the turret was from the tanks gun mantlet. In the case of the Jumbo a bit more becouse of the overall coverage provided at the front by its gun mantlet as compared with a Panther. A direct hit to a Panthers turret front is quite a bit more likely as would be with a Jumbo. The Jumbo's mantlet looks as though it has almost complete coverage from end to end at the front of the turret. As far as the transmission cover 114mm to 140mm thickness not being massivly sloped ? .. massivly no. But well sloped yes !. 47 degrees at the upper side of the cover and 56 degrees at the lower side of the cover. This was extemely hard for even the largest German guns to overcome. The nose was rounded and was 140mm thick at the outer most edge and gradually reduced to 114mm thickness at the upper most and lower most portions of the transmission cover. One look at the layout of the Shermans transmission cover. It is clear that the rounded nose encompases only about 10% to 15% of the overall area to be hit by an incoming German shot. The remaining area is primarily sloped at 47 degrees and the remaining at 56 degrees. Given it's thickness there and the degree of slope. It was extremely well protected in that area. Frontally and along with it's entire turret the Jumbo's were extremely well protected, Even by German standards. As superior as say a Panther or Tiger I was in many ways to it. Those tanks were not designed to be assault tanks. Based on previous experince with German AT guns, Primarily the L/48 75mm, L/56 88mm of the Tiger I and Flak 88's. The Jumbo's were designed from the outset to resist hits from these weapons, And they did ! .. And just imagine if the US forces had to try and knock out their own Jumbo's with the same stuff they had to throw at the Germans ? .. It would have been next to impossible I think !. Just like the King Tiger, It would have almost been impossible to take out frontally by US and UK guns. What kind of reputation would that tank have had if it had been a German design with that kind of armor protection I wonder ? .. The Germans simply had tons and tons of very deadly AT guns to throw at it. And those Jumbo's were often set out to actually attract German AT fire so as to disclose their location!. More than likely a rain of US artillery fire would then come next. Like any other tank the Jumbo's had their Achilles heel. The hull side armor was only 75mm thick. And allthough that was not bad. It was not nearly good enough to withstand most German AT guns around that time. When they were taken out of action, I would suspect it was primarily from shots around that location. Alltough I'm American. I think the US was really dumb for not accepting at least some of the 17pdr guns for use in their tanks. It is said that the Brits claimed there were not enough of those guns to go around and the Americans said it would be a longistics nightmare ? .. There was the plan in late 1944 to make the Jumbo's a massed produced tank outfitted with the 76mm gun with muzzle brake and HVSS suspension system like the M4A3E8's had. And later even the possibilty of mounting the Pershings turret with it's 90mm gun on that HVSS Jumbo. Had the war been longer fought in Europe, I think it may have been possible to see at least the 76mm HVSS Jumbo's as a regular piece motoring around. I have also thought about the 17pdr in the Jumbo. The 17pdr would have been able to mount in the Jumbo's turret. And what an awsome piece that would have been for the allies to have. The ultimate Sherman !! .. Jumbo with a 17pdr and an HVSS suspension system. It could have happened and should have happened IMO.
  13. Hi roqf77 It's true the Jumbo's turret armor was on the soft side. Around 250 bhn was the lowest measured for it. So we can assume the others had simular numbers. It's my understabding, the gun mantle and particuarily the transmission cover along with the face plate were quite a bit harder. Why the turret was cast that soft I don't know? The Churchill VII's and VIII's were well armored. 152mm frontally and around 95mm for side armor. That's darn good no doubt about that. It's frontal armor was set at the vertical however. Which did not promote deflection nearly as much as with a Jumbo. Turret protection still well in the Jumbo's favor. The Russian IS-2 and IS-2 model 1944 tanks were well protected all around. And the model 1944 IS-2 had an incredibly well protected front upper glacius. However the it's lower hull was not well sloped at all. And even though the front, side and rear protection offered by it's turret was good. IMO it was no where near as protected as with the Jumbo. An armor calculator will bear that out if you have one. On another note with these IS-2 tanks. The quality of the armor was absolutly terrible !! .. Due to shortages of good quality metals, the Russians made due with poor materials. The armor was extremely brittle. I'd have to say the Jumbo was tops as far as protection goes. My order would be 1. Jumbo 2. IS-2 model 1944 3. Churchill VII's and VIII's 4. IS-2 and Pershing I'm probably using a different armor calculator than you are .. 183 and 193 are pretty close though.
  14. Actually the Jumbo's hull front was 102mm thick and sloped at 47 degrees for a 193mm effective thickness. The transmission cover was much harder for an incoming AP projectile to overcome. It's thickness went from 140mm and gradually reduced to 114.5mm thick at the upper most portion of the cover. Also sloped at 47 degrees the transmission covers average effective thickness would work out to something like 238mm. The difficulty in breaching that kind of armor could be compounded greatly if the incoming shot at the tank was taken from any angle other than strait on. The turret armor protection on the Jumbo's had to be unquestionably the best of any tank used in WWII. With a 152mm of thickness front, side and rear. followed by a 178mm thick gun shield. Tanks were usually alot more difficult to take out on the battlefield than on paper. How difficult the CM game makes it to take out this tank, I really have no idea ? .. But in real life it was very difficult. I can only see the King Tiger surpassing it in terms of protection.
×
×
  • Create New...