Erwin.Rommel

I just tests the Panther vs IV as you requested.During all the 20 times I tested,Just one APCBC from panther is needed to knock out the IV.whatever the places the rounds hit,the rounds not only penetrate the front armor but also go through the interior of the tank,then penetrate the rear armor of the tank until hits the ground or fly to the outside of the map.

I suppose this picture may explain the use of these type of Machine guns that attach to the rear part of the turret http://s1201.photobucket.com/albums/bb350/yuyanzhe1986/?action=view&current=1.jpg For my exprience of M10 in CMBN,the crews only use the .50 when the ememy infantry appeared opposite to the direction of turret behind the vehicle .

Then the results in CMAK seems unreasonable to you?

I repeatly tests the M5A1 VS IV(IV holds fire),the range is about 200-300m.the result:50mm turret front is no need to discuss.For the hull,37mm APCBC can not penetrate lower front and upper front of IV in the given range,the rounds that hit the superstructure front of IV can achieved penetration or partial penetration(mostly the partial),above results has no problem.My real concern is,during these repeat tests,just 2-3 penetrations on the superstructure front leads to a "KO" .As we know the 37mm APCBC shot has no explosive charge,these small calibar rounds don't have much aftereffect when penetrated about 80mm Armor.I created the same tests in CMAK,almost all the rounds that penetrate hull(even the turret) result in a "no serious damage",and the IV is still alive after been penetrated many times.So,Is the aftereffect of 37mm AP shot been modelled too high in CMBN?

During the ww2 era,the accuracy of tank fire is largely depend on the precisely estimate the range to the target which is highly rely on the crew's exprience.Not every crew except those crack or elite one can achieve the first shot hit over 1000m because of the range estimate error.But after spot the first shot,gunner can corrected the right range,the second shot should precisely hit the target at this range most of the time just like it appears in 1.01 and CMX1.Great job,BFC!

I did a lot of tests both in CMBN and CMAK.Now I'm pretty sure that when shooting from 100m-1000m,the accuracy of tank fire in CMBN 1.01 is quite similar to the accuracy in CMAK during the clear days.I haven't test the longer range,however they shouldn't have much difference. what we lack now in CMBN is that the weather conditions still has no effect on the accuracy,it only affects the spotting ability.In CMBB/AK,Different weather conditions affect not only the ranger of LOS but also the accuracy.I do hope BFC can combined these features together in the near future.

I agree with you,the HEAT round always can not effectively deal with infantry.I suppose the rounds should randomly hit the area around the target but not always hit the same place.In CMBN this issue is definitely not exist,the tank in the CMBN is really killing machines compare to the tanks in CMSF. Maybe we should wait for some official explanations

I did a small test that I created in CMBN 1.00.Panther and M4A3(76)w (all regulars)shoot each other at about 1000m(no hull down).During my test in 1.00,the panther almost achieved first shot hit every times,then I repeated the test in 1.01,to my surprise,the panther has a very high chance to miss it's first shot over 1000m,but the second shot always hit the target.for the M4A3(76)w,it is less accurate,it always takes 2-3 shot to hit the target over 1000m.I suppose BFC do decrease the accuracy of the tank fire especially the first shot accuracy.

When I create a small test that I put a tank(test the M1,leopard,challenger) in the open ground and a enemy infantry unit about 100m from the tank,when the mission start,the tank spot the enemy unit that lay on the ground,the issue appeared ,the tank's rounds repeatly hit the ground in front of the enemy unit.I also test this in CMBN,no the issue.So BFC,this is feature or a bug?

Steve,in the future patches,can we get a feature that we can change the direction of the foxholes?I have done some tests in which I found when the direction of the team in the foxhole are different from the direction of the foxhole itself,the team always can not position themselves correctly and get out of foxhole to find some new place,in some specific situation,5-6 soldiers position them in a foxhole and the other three are empty.

The M36 is not that effective as it is supposed to because the 90mm M82 APCBC has difficult to deal with the upper front hull of the panther,if there is no flaws on the upper front hull of the panther,according to the theoretical caculation M82 APCBC can not penetrate it even at point blank range. During a field test of the M36 TD with the M77 AP and M82 APCBC,three rounds been fired at about 150-200yards,two rounds just partially penetrate the upper front hull another round achieve a complete penetration but on the juntion between the upper front hull and lower front hull which is suppose to be a potential weak point until the T33 APBC arrived with the Pershing.the panther finally became the real meat on the table.

Just play the la deset scenario as America side .I lost one M10 and Knock out three Panther .in fact I manager to penetrate the panther's front low hull once and turret front once,but all these two penetrations are ineffective,all panther losses result from side attack.one from 57mm first then bazooka,the other two from M10's 76mm.I suppose in fact normandy is good place to ambush these big cats because those high bocage give you the good cover to flank them and the fire range is always below 150-200 yards

During the ww2 era especially in the actual combat even shooting the stationary target can not be very accurate.here is the famous experts lorrin bird's caculation about the accuraccy of the ww2 tank. FIRST ROUND ACCURACY OF GERMAN GUNS The following hit percentages are taken from German ballistic tables (capped AP) and refer to the case where the range is known to a stationary 2m high by 2.5m wide target, and the random dispersion is doubled to model battlefield conditions: RANGE..50L60...75L48...75L70...88L56...88L71 500m........100.....100.....100......100.....100 1000m.... ...95......66......97.......93......85 1500m........68......33......72.......74......61 2000m................16......49.......50......43 2500m.................8......29.......31......34 3000m.................5......18.......19......25 Relative dispersion in the above table follows some unexpected patterns, with 75L70 being less scatter prone than 88L56 out to 1000m, but after that range 88L56 is slightly more accurate in terms of repeatability. With regard to 88L71, the scatter pattern is more diffuse than 75L70 and 88L56 at ranges out to 2000m but then attains a superior performance at 2500m which increases with range. German data for their use of the captured Russian 76.2mm L51.5 gun showed dispersion patterns similar to the 75L48 when APCBC was fired., with similar hit percentages with a known range. The 50L60 and 88L71 data applies to both the tank gun and towed weapons, while the 88L56 figures are limited to the tank gun. Review of data for the 88mm L56 Flak suggests that that weapon may have possessed greater dispersion than the tank gun. The marked inferiority of 75L48 scatter to the other guns is unexpected., since the 75L43 was used to knock-out T34’s at ranges above 1000m. It would be interesting to see if 75mm L46 Pak 40 dispersion had the same general values as the 75L48, which came along at a later date. It has been written that the introduction of the 50mm Pak in Africa greatly extended the range of direct fire combat for tank and anti- tank gun units, and the relatively close scatter pattern and excellent gun sight quality for that weapon would be superior to the 2 pdr anti-tank gun in both respects. Using the German figures for doubled random dispersion and assuming an average range estimate error of 25% with a bell shaped error distribution (typical results for average crew, based on British and American firing trials), the following first round hit percentages were computed against a stationary 2m high by 2.5m wide target: FIRST ROUND HIT % RANGE...50L60...75L48...75L70...88L56...88L71 500m...........81......75.....88.......79.....94 800m...........36......34.....51.......39.....61 1100m..........17......15.....28.......21.....34 1400m...........9.......7.....16.......12.....19 Muzzle velocities are 835 m/s for 50L60, 750 m/s for 75L48, 935 m/s for 75L70, 780 m/s for 88L56 and 1000 m/s for 88L71. All rounds APCBC except APC for 50L60 A 2m x 2.5m target size was used by the Germans as a reasonable model for the front view of a typical target tank, which simplified the calculations. Those dimensions simplify the complex variations in target width with height (T34 turret front is narrower than hull and has sloping sides, T34 hull width varies with height, etc.), and probably assume that ground rolls and folds blocked out some of the lower tank area. The above stated estimates for first round hit percentage probably represent the high side of what would be expected from average troops in battle, since “nervous and/or fatigue” origin errors were not considered during the calculations. Under the stress of combat, people can forget intermediate steps and see things on the gun sight that are not there. Discussions on the AFV News forum site have brought out the possibility that unquantifiable human errors may account for a good share of the reported misses at “sure thing” ranges. Regarding second shot corrections after misses, the Germans advised that bracketing should be used at ranges above 1200m using 200m increments below 2000m and 400m above that distance. At or below 1200m, "fire for effect" corrections to the initial shot would be made using various methods that would result in a more accurate change in shot placement than adding or subtracting 200m. An American gunnery manual for the Sherman indicates that bracketing is to be used at ranges over 1000 yards due to gun sight limitations which restrict the crew ability to make fine adjustments to the gun setting.

FIRST ROUND ACCURACY OF GERMAN GUNS The following hit percentages are taken from German ballistic tables (capped AP) and refer to the case where the range is known to a stationary 2m high by 2.5m wide target, and the random dispersion is doubled to model battlefield conditions: RANGE..50L60...75L48...75L70...88L56...88L71 500m........100.....100.....100......100.....100 1000m.... ...95......66......97.......93......85 1500m........68......33......72.......74......61 2000m................16......49.......50......43 2500m.................8......29.......31......34 3000m.................5......18.......19......25 Relative dispersion in the above table follows some unexpected patterns, with 75L70 being less scatter prone than 88L56 out to 1000m, but after that range 88L56 is slightly more accurate in terms of repeatability. With regard to 88L71, the scatter pattern is more diffuse than 75L70 and 88L56 at ranges out to 2000m but then attains a superior performance at 2500m which increases with range. German data for their use of the captured Russian 76.2mm L51.5 gun showed dispersion patterns similar to the 75L48 when APCBC was fired., with similar hit percentages with a known range. The 50L60 and 88L71 data applies to both the tank gun and towed weapons, while the 88L56 figures are limited to the tank gun. Review of data for the 88mm L56 Flak suggests that that weapon may have possessed greater dispersion than the tank gun. The marked inferiority of 75L48 scatter to the other guns is unexpected., since the 75L43 was used to knock-out T34’s at ranges above 1000m. It would be interesting to see if 75mm L46 Pak 40 dispersion had the same general values as the 75L48, which came along at a later date. It has been written that the introduction of the 50mm Pak in Africa greatly extended the range of direct fire combat for tank and anti- tank gun units, and the relatively close scatter pattern and excellent gun sight quality for that weapon would be superior to the 2 pdr anti-tank gun in both respects. Using the German figures for doubled random dispersion and assuming an average range estimate error of 25% with a bell shaped error distribution (typical results for average crew, based on British and American firing trials), the following first round hit percentages were computed against a stationary 2m high by 2.5m wide target: FIRST ROUND HIT % RANGE...50L60...75L48...75L70...88L56...88L71 500m...........81......75.....88.......79.....94 800m...........36......34.....51.......39.....61 1100m..........17......15.....28.......21.....34 1400m...........9.......7.....16.......12.....19 Muzzle velocities are 835 m/s for 50L60, 750 m/s for 75L48, 935 m/s for 75L70, 780 m/s for 88L56 and 1000 m/s for 88L71. All rounds APCBC except APC for 50L60 A 2m x 2.5m target size was used by the Germans as a reasonable model for the front view of a typical target tank, which simplified the calculations. Those dimensions simplify the complex variations in target width with height (T34 turret front is narrower than hull and has sloping sides, T34 hull width varies with height, etc.), and probably assume that ground rolls and folds blocked out some of the lower tank area. The above stated estimates for first round hit percentage probably represent the high side of what would be expected from average troops in battle, since “nervous and/or fatigue” origin errors were not considered during the calculations. Under the stress of combat, people can forget intermediate steps and see things on the gun sight that are not there. Discussions on the AFV News forum site have brought out the possibility that unquantifiable human errors may account for a good share of the reported misses at “sure thing” ranges. Regarding second shot corrections after misses, the Germans advised that bracketing should be used at ranges above 1200m using 200m increments below 2000m and 400m above that distance. At or below 1200m, "fire for effect" corrections to the initial shot would be made using various methods that would result in a more accurate change in shot placement than adding or subtracting 200m. An American gunnery manual for the Sherman indicates that bracketing is to be used at ranges over 1000 yards due to gun sight limitations which restrict the crew ability to make fine adjustments to the gun setting.

you can replace the original sounds with your own version.

Already use your great mod combined with vein's

This problem exists in CMSF too.I suppose in the game,the gunner just aim at a single soldier of the target unit when the round(AP or HE) accurately hit the the targeted soldier but not the nearby ground,this issue appeared

I know that and another armor change or correction from the CMBB and CMAK is that the lower hull front armor of the ausf G is reduced to 50mm/55. I absolutely believe the expertise of BFC in these aspects. It seems that the 110mm of the ausf A in the manual means the turret front armor,I extract the improvement of the A from D in the CMBN manual as follows: 1.improved turret traverse speed 2.improved commander's cupola 3.Adds periscope for the loader 4.110mm "turret front Armor"(ausf D is 100mm) ** 5.upper hull front is no longer face-hardened 6.Armor:15-120mm(0.5-4.7in) this data makes me guess that the mantlet thickness that BFC used in the CMBN is 120mm

Well,it is sure that there are many different claims.what I mean is at least in the CMAK and CMBB,the BFC adopt the "100mm/curved mantlet"version.

After lots of tests,I found that for the tank(with turret),the hit laber will never show the weapon mount being penetrated even I used the German PAK43 to attack the panther's turret which is almost sure to penetrate(during this test all the PAK43's round hitting the turret is penetration but all shows"turret front penetration"),my best guess is that the hit laber in the CMBN only show the last hit area of the target vehicle,So if the round penetrate the mantlet then into the turret,it only show the last hitting place:the "turret front penetrated",in fact "turret front penetrated"in CMBN="weapon mount penetrated+turret front penetrate",I have another evidence that support my guess is during one of my tests when an imcoming round hit the panther's upper hull front and ricochet to the weapon mounted,the hit laber only shows"hit weapon mount"which is the last place be hit but not including the "hit upper hull front"

You can check the CMAK or CMBB,all the panther has the same 100mm/curve mantlet,the statements from some materials that said it changes from 100mm to 110mm refer to the "turret front" not the "mantlet"

For the front protection of the tiger,it is anther story,because the tiger's mantlet is very special,it is completely different from the panther,its 100mm mantlet and turret front armor overlap at most of the area.as a result,the tiger turret front protection is range from 100mm to 200mm,most area is about 200mm,for the panther,there is no armor behind the mantlet,so the protection is just 100mm/curve. So,during the ww2,an hull downed tiger is a very horrific enemy for any allied or soviet tank.

The panther's mantlet is 100mm/curve and never change during the war http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/german_turret7.html

Well,No one is interested in this?I just try the Tiger.All the penatrations appear at the turret front too,all hits at weapon mount with no effect.As we know for the tiger,the mantlet cover almost all the area of the turret front(the tiger's mantlet is very special, the mentlet and the turret front armor overlap at most of the area).Then how the incoming round hit the turret front armor?Does the"turret front" really mean the turret front armor that not covered by the mantlet?