Jump to content

Weapons effectivness


Recommended Posts

Why do you say that? Seems to me that the odds are they would not be spotted without very careful and thorough observation, if stationary and camo'd as they usually would be, but of course there is always some chance that they would.

I'd disagree. Walls give rubbish concealment because you have to stick up over them to be able to shoot. Similarly, peeking over the lip of a draw. Remember, these are veteran crews Kettler is talking about. The reason they got to be veterans was because they learned to notice such obvious "camouflage".

Not to mention the fact that John keeps avoiding saying whether or not he re-ran the turn to see if they do it all the time, or do they mostly miss it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm reminded of a British report I saw long long ago about the life expectancy of anti-tank guns in western desert tank combat. If memory serves, I think they said a gun will fire an average of just six rounds before being knocked out. Of course a couple will fire many-many more and most won't fire any at all. But the average, or typical (I forget which) will only get off six shots. In Normandy towed anti-tank guns, which were fielded by the battalion, had a dismal kill record - mostly because so few enemy tanks ever crossed their paths

But the western desert will have pretty much no concealment and it might or might not have rocks for cover. Even if it has rocks it would be a prime target for mortars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

womble,

I'm one of those people, but the ranges I"m talking about for the self same 57mm are more like 300 meters--behind a wall, partially in a gully (with or without trees), in a crater, and so forth. Under those conditions, single ATG's are being eaten alive by buttoned Veteran Panther tanks while the latter are firing on the move. Those same Panthers are hitting M10s and Shermans which are hull down, considerably larger targets, granted, at something like 700 meters.

Georgie,

I take it from the way you describe your unclarity regarding where the Panthers were hit, that you didn't have Hit Labels turned on? This strikes me as a truly unfortunate loss of valuable test data. That said, it's entirely possible I missed something important in the narrative.

Regards,

John Kettler

Thanks for the heads up John. I'll check it and do the test again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

womble,

I'm one of those people, but the ranges I"m talking about for the self same 57mm are more like 300 meters--behind a wall, partially in a gully (with or without trees), in a crater, and so forth. Under those conditions, single ATG's are being eaten alive by buttoned Veteran Panther tanks while the latter are firing on the move. Those same Panthers are hitting M10s and Shermans which are hull down, considerably larger targets, granted, at something like 700 meters.

Georgie,

I take it from the way you describe your unclarity regarding where the Panthers were hit, that you didn't have Hit Labels turned on? This strikes me as a truly unfortunate loss of valuable test data. That said, it's entirely possible I missed something important in the narrative.

Regards,

John Kettler

Reran the test with "hit text" on. Killing hits were to the Panthers top deck and one to the turret top so they are on quite a slant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reran the test with "hit text" on. Killing hits were to the Panthers top deck and one to the turret top so they are on quite a slant

Judging from the kills you got in the rerun tests, the Panther's angle of descent was acute enough to cancel out armor angle compound effects to some degree and expose a relatively thin plate to attack. Hits to the Panther's top deck could be and were obtained by M10s on level ground via aiming at and hitting the lower portion of the gun mantelet, sliding the projectile down the lower side of the mantelet and through the hull roof, which is why "G" model Panthers had that "chin" added. Whether this was doable with a much lower 57mm, though, is unknown. What's clear is your test is exposing plates to fires seldom seen, and that is effectively multiplying the killing potential of rather anemic guns--unless very scarce APDS is employed. When the British combat debuted the 6-pounder, I believe open fire range, against much more lightly protected target tanks, was around 600 meters, of the order of half of your open fire distance.

I'm still looking for the results of the firing trials at Shoeburyness and Isigny (know I posted about them, but can't find them), but I did locate this, which illustrates at least some of the issues http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=898&highlight=isigny

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging from the kills you got in the rerun tests, the Panther's angle of descent was acute enough to cancel out armor angle compound effects to some degree and expose a relatively thin plate to attack. Hits to the Panther's top deck could be and were obtained by M10s on level ground via aiming at and hitting the lower portion of the gun mantelet, sliding the projectile down the lower side of the mantelet and through the hull roof, which is why "G" model Panthers had that "chin" added. Whether this was doable with a much lower 57mm, though, is unknown. What's clear is your test is exposing plates to fires seldom seen, and that is effectively multiplying the killing potential of rather anemic guns--unless very scarce APDS is employed. When the British combat debuted the 6-pounder, I believe open fire range, against much more lightly protected target tanks, was around 600 meters, of the order of half of your open fire distance.

I'm still looking for the results of the firing trials at Shoeburyness and Isigny (know I posted about them, but can't find them), but I did locate this, which illustrates at least some of the issues http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=898&highlight=isigny

Regards,

John Kettler

Very interesting thread and data. I wonder how close CMBN follows these test results. Seems to me like we should be seeing some frontal penetrations on the Tiger by the 76mm. At what range is the 76mm the most effective? When I find that out then I will design some maps with ranges to fit it. They need all the help that they can get. Probably not much chance against the Panther but maybe the Tiger would be a different story at the optimum range for the 76mm. I'll start doing some testing to see if there is a range where the US 76mm can get a frontal penetration on the Tiger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically the US 76mm had no trouble against the Panther turret front at ranges of 400 yards or less, as commonly happened in the hedgerows in Normandy, and later in the Lorraine in early morning knife fights in fog, or both then and in the Bulge in town interiors. It should also succeed at similar ranges, or maybe 500 meters, against the Tiger I hull front, and the 400 meter distance or maybe slightly closer, against the Tiger I turret front.

Understand the round had sufficient energy to penetrate all of those plates out to more like 1 to 1.5 kilometers, but the unimproved AP rounds failed due to shatter, beyond the ranges stated above. APCR readily penetrate all of those plates out to 800 to 1000 meters, as did the US 90mm with plain AP. The only plate on any of them that was proof against the plain US 76mm even at close range is the Panther glacis. The Brit 17 pdr could also penetrate all of the above, even to km plus ranges and without any difficulty, and at closer range could penetrate the Panther glacis (especially later war models, which were weaker metallurgically).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting thread and data. I wonder how close CMBN follows these test results. Seems to me like we should be seeing some frontal penetrations on the Tiger by the 76mm. At what range is the 76mm the most effective?

I found (IIRC - can't find where I posted it just at the minute) the 76mm to be relatively effective at 1000m against front aspect Tigers. It's not as relatively (gun-vs-armour-relative) effective as the Tigers's 88mm is against the M4 tanks, but if the Tiggers aren't firing back, they can certainly kill at that range.

As to optimum range: about 3m, I reckon. Enough to let the propellant gases dissipate (which is by way of saying "as close as possible").

Something interesting I noticed about target selection in my tests: when the shermans scored "Weapon" kills on the Tiger, they stopped firing on the target, even though there was no way they could tell it was disabled. It wasn't that it wasn't firing back; every Tiger was Fanatic with a short cover arc, so none of them were firing back. Somehow the Sherman "knew" the kitty got no teefs, and declined to waste any more ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what the maximum effective range is, but the 76mm in game will penetrate the Tiger hull well past 500m (the furthest I've tested). The front turret is much tougher because of the thick mantlet, but there is currently a bug in the game that causes the mantlet to be bypassed by incoming rounds at times.

The Panther mantlet can be penetrated past 500m as well, but not reliably due to it's roundness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of weapon effectiveness: is the magic amazing sidearm addressed in FI? I'm reminded to ask because I just lost 2 out of 4 from a team with rifles and SMGs in [some kind of woods terrain tile] behind Bocage to a rampaging pistol-armed (I looked carefully) crew at about 30m (they ran closer, but the firing was all at (presumably a waypoint) about 30m short of the hedgerow. The crew were running about in "long grass" (I think), and took 2 of 4 as well, before running away, but really, this seems an unlikely result, and somewhat representative of the concerns previously voiced.

And, RE: 76mm vs Tiger: A test I did of 15 Sherman-76s firing on 15 Tigers at 2000m til they ran out of AP resulted in 3 Tigers killed by hull penetrations, and several disabled by gun hits. So the 76 can penetrate even that far out. None of the hit texts said "Weak point" or "Opening". I think 1 of the kills may have been from successive "spalling" results persuading even an Elite, Fanatic crew to unass the vehicle, rather than from an actual penetration. The Shermans were Elite too, and more than half the shots at that range were hits, I'd estimate. Without counting the rounds fired at the Gun damaged Tigers, that's about 400 rounds fired, 200 hits and 3 kills, so not great odds, and that's with elite crew accuracy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

400m it is then. I'm at work on a 3000m x 4000m map. Purely fictitious but will have plenty of approx 400m range shots plus some 1500m or so shots. Kind of Lorraine like. It is designed as "The Hunting Ground" and hopefully will provide an opportunity to hunt and avoid tanks in a more or less even setting. No way to erase the advantage the German tanks held,who would want to, but with some good tactics the US tanks should be able to give a good account of themselves as they did in the Lorraine fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

400m it is then. I'm at work on a 3000m x 4000m map. Purely fictitious but will have plenty of approx 400m range shots plus some 1500m or so shots. Kind of Lorraine like. It is designed as "The Hunting Ground" and hopefully will provide an opportunity to hunt and avoid tanks in a more or less even setting. No way to erase the advantage the German tanks held,who would want to, but with some good tactics the US tanks should be able to give a good account of themselves as they did in the Lorraine fighting.

Nice. Hoping we will see more of Lorraine in the next module and not just focus on MG, lots of good scenario material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of weapon effectiveness: is the magic amazing sidearm addressed in FI? I'm reminded to ask because I just lost 2 out of 4 from a team with rifles and SMGs in [some kind of woods terrain tile] behind Bocage to a rampaging pistol-armed (I looked carefully) crew at about 30m (they ran closer, but the firing was all at (presumably a waypoint) about 30m short of the hedgerow. The crew were running about in "long grass" (I think), and took 2 of 4 as well, before running away, but really, this seems an unlikely result, and somewhat representative of the concerns previously voiced.

And, RE: 76mm vs Tiger: A test I did of 15 Sherman-76s firing on 15 Tigers at 2000m til they ran out of AP resulted in 3 Tigers killed by hull penetrations, and several disabled by gun hits. So the 76 can penetrate even that far out. None of the hit texts said "Weak point" or "Opening". I think 1 of the kills may have been from successive "spalling" results persuading even an Elite, Fanatic crew to unass the vehicle, rather than from an actual penetration. The Shermans were Elite too, and more than half the shots at that range were hits, I'd estimate. Without counting the rounds fired at the Gun damaged Tigers, that's about 400 rounds fired, 200 hits and 3 kills, so not great odds, and that's with elite crew accuracy...

At least its better for the 76mm than CMx 1 was. I don't remember ever getting a Tiger or a Panther kill from head on with the 76mm in CMx1. More realistic in CMBN?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... magic amazing sidearm...

I may be late to the party with this, but I think I've spotted why (at least American) pistol-totin' tank crew are so badass. They're John Woo ambi-pistol fu-heroes. Obviously, BFC haven't got the animations sorted out just yet (I'm sure they're in the same "to do" basket as close combat animations), but they do have the tankers holding one pistol with their offhand one still in a holster.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider also the possibility that the pistols might only be a graphic convention (has anybody checked to see what they are actually armed with?). Tanks usually had at least one SMG and maybe a couple of folding carbines for the crew.

Michael

Nah. You can see the tommy guns and Schmeissers when they have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the hit texts said "Weak point" or "Opening".

I have seen evidence of weak point penetrations, specifically very rare penetrations of the Panther glacis that is normally proof against anything less than a 17 pdr. But I have never seen the hit text say "weak point" as it did in the CMx1 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least its better for the 76mm than CMx 1 was. I don't remember ever getting a Tiger or a Panther kill from head on with the 76mm in CMx1. More realistic in CMBN?

As best as I can tell the change from CMx1 to CMx2 is that CMx2 does not model shatter gap, at least not for the US 76mm. Whether or not this is more or less realistic is debatable. My own suspicion is that CMBN is too optimistic while the CMx1 games may have been too pessimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned in the earlier CMBN thread on the topic, what pistols lack in range and accuracy they make up for in quick-draw firepower. Your typical German infantryman's got his bolt-action Mauser. 'Clint Eastwood' standing there has a Browning M1911 pistol in his hand that'll squeeze off seven rounds as fast as he can pull the trigger. So what if the first five rounds miss? The sixth will "blow your head clean off" to quote Dirty Harry. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shermans shipped with two Thompsons and loaded magazines as standard issue for the tank. Source: Hero of the Soviet Union Loza http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html?q=%2Ftankers%2F17-dmitriy-loza.html%2F&start=2 The loaded magazines bit is a carryover memory from reading his DEFENDING THE SOVIET MOTHERLAND. His gripe against the Thompson's penetration is interesting and shows that quilted, heavily padded winter jackets could and did function as soft body armor, trapping and slowing the big, heavy, slow rounded .45 bullet. Interestingly, an optimized fragmentation weapon (COFRAM) the U.S. was developing was scrapped when the same phenomenology was noted as a result of Korean War experience. Source: My then boss John Green, head of Operations Analysis, Hughes Missile Systems Group. He learned of this while working at Naval Weapon Center, China Lake, California.

MikeyD,

Excellent point re firepower and firing rate of M1911A1! Combat example from Vietnam--opponent has AK-47s: three dropped in 4 seconds

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/legends/serious.htm

Combat examples from World War II

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_186_31/ai_n27134454/

More combat examples, this time Medal of Honor recipients. Note both offensive and defensive employments of the weapon.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/us-m1911-medal-of-honor/

From my reading of numerous combat accounts, pissed off/highly motivated to survive GIs with .45 ACPs have a long and storied history of wreaking havoc. As long as the AFV crew member's morale holds (a function of a host of factors interacting), I see no fundamental reason for BFC to, say, automatically break bailing crews. Depending on how hard the crew gets hit, how tired and scared it is, how many casualties are taken over a given period, tank ablaze vs. not and so forth, I think on average we will not see a major problem with this avenging angel behavior. Most AFV crews will probably go to ground or even break and run, but there will be some who let the nearest opponents have it. This, I think, is as it should be.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, an optimized fragmentation weapon (COFRAM) the U.S. was developing was scrapped when the same phenomenology was noted as a result of Korean War experience. Source: My then boss John Green, head of Operations Analysis, Hughes Missile Systems Group. He learned of this while working at Naval Weapon Center, China Lake, California.

John, you certainly possess vast knowledge of 20th century warfare, weapons in particular. My prayer, and I'm certainly not alone in wishing this, is that you employ this reservoir of expertise in the furtherance of good, not evil.

BTW, are you collecting a pension? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Childress,

I grew up in the home of a defense electronics engineer, surrounded by military history and military fiction. I got into board wargaming at 12 and miniature wargaming by around high school. Have played a bunch of rule systems and done playtest, too. In college, we did a Senior Seminar in Military History which was very helpful when I applied for a job in Operations Analysis at Hughes. Not only had I helped plan a devastating and clever Japanese war production scheme, but I personally weaponeered the entire strike array against the Panama Canal (two weeks of analysis by the Engineering Department at Cal State Long Beach revealed the Canal system utterly wrecked, the locks destroyed, the lake running the locks drained via destruction of the Gatun Dam, but also the dredges sunk, the Galliard Cut blocked and the approaches mined on both ends). Nor did it hurt that all my SPI WW III type gaming had given me such a superb knowledge of Russian force structure that I was able to instantly point out to a WW II battlefield promotee (retired Army colonel and our TOW expert) that 130mm M-46 guns were Army and Front assets, NOT Division weapons. Mind, I was very brash and thought I knew a lot more than I did back then, but I wound up being the go to guy in my department when it came to threat stuff. All told, I spent 11 1/4 years in this line of work, first at Hughes and later at Rockwell North American AeroSpace Operations. Was nearly recruited twice by Army's Foreign Science & Technology Center and once by the CIA as a case officer trainee. I have consistently worked for the greatest good, even when that has repeatedly jeopardized my career or even life. My blog, which is bleeding edge and beyond, technically and in many other ways, continues that pattern. I am very proud, too, of the work I did in the 1992 Oscarâ„¢ winning doc, "The Panama Deception, in which I hold, despite some subsequent credit inflation by others, the Primary Research credit. Sleep well, Childress!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my reading of numerous combat accounts, pissed off/highly motivated to survive GIs with .45 ACPs have a long and storied history of wreaking havoc. As long as the AFV crew member's morale holds (a function of a host of factors interacting), I see no fundamental reason for BFC to, say, automatically break bailing crews. Depending on how hard the crew gets hit, how tired and scared it is, how many casualties are taken over a given period, tank ablaze vs. not and so forth, I think on average we will not see a major problem with this avenging angel behavior. Most AFV crews will probably go to ground or even break and run, but there will be some who let the nearest opponents have it. This, I think, is as it should be.

Sure, at close range, the .45 is an excellent system vs a bolt action rifle. Less so at ranges over about 1AS, and certainly it shouldn't be enough better at 30m to come out even against a team behind excellent cover, with at least one MP40.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...