Panther Shot Trap Still Not Trapping

[Vanir Ausf B]

This has been an ongoing issue for over 2 years now. With the 2.11 patch out I decided to test the Panther armor once again.

This test was done at 800 meters. UK Sherman Vs firing on Panther A mids.

Hits on Panther mantlet: 636

Ricochets: 0

There was one penetration of the top hull armor but there was no ricochet hit text, nor did the hit text indicate that it had struck any other plate first.

It would be nice to see this working.

[Fizou]

Thanks for putting this up Vanir. Hope to see an official responce from BFC.

[c3k]

In real life, given the geometry of your test (unknown to us), how many rounds which impact the Panther would've ricocheted down into the top of the hull?

[Vanir Ausf B]

The geometry of my test was that the tanks were at the same elevation facing directly towards each other.

As for exactly what area of the mantlet would produce downward ricochets, that is unknown. Even Rexford didn't know. Charles seemed to assume around 10% in the CMx1 games (the shot trap was modeled in CMx1 as a higher probability of weak point penetrations though the front turret).

[Vanir Ausf B]

Although the exact chance of a ricochet is not known, WW II Ballistics does give an indication of the percentage of hits that would impact at certain angles.

[MikeyD]

I recall when Charles first put the Panther shot trap into the game I set up a test map and got a deflection KO and brew-up first or second shot... then never got another one again. Awhile ago Charles claimed that he had dialed-up the likelihood of a shot trap kill. But apparently its gone from 'almost impossible' all the way up to 'still almost impossible'.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes. There was a note in the 1.11 readme related to it

* Panther "shot trap" on the lower turret mantlet (potentially) deflects shots downward into the hull as expected.

But the very small number of ricochet penetrations I have ever seen on the Panther all occurred prior to that. Including other tests I have done since then I have put well over 1000 rounds onto the Panther A mid mantlet at various ranges without seeing one.

Given that I tend to use the Panther A mid in all my tests I suppose it's possible that it's a problem with that particular model only, but I think that unlikely.

[Vanir Ausf B]

In case anyone wants to take a look.

Scenario file

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sgpsjtzfm6cfvhy/gunnery%20shot%20trap.btt

Save game file

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wv105nljlogmxsv/gunnery%20shot%20trap.bts

[jppsx]

Doesn't it was the kingtiger posh turet who had that problem in real life, not the panther?

[Placebo]

Doesn't it was the kingtiger posh turet who had that problem in real life, not the panther?

The last version of the panther had a new shape to the lower mantlet to remove the shot trap, so it was definitly a problem for earlier verisons of the panther.

[c3k]

Re the mantlet "chin": could that have been an over engineered solution to a rarely encountered problem? (Like zimmerit?)

I have some books on Panther repair work. I wonder if there are any stats on roof penetrations under the mantlet?

It sure looks like the round mantlet could cause a ricochet, but did they? Most rounds impacting would be about 3" in diameter, not a reflecting line. Could that have jammed the round against the opposing surfaces? (Not literally...)

Would a higher velocity round have a better ricochet chance?

If the Panther were hull down, would that change the hit location? (Aiming at center of visible mass.)

[James Crowley]

Charles B MacDonald's book 'The Battle Of The Bulge' makes reference to a 2d Lt Charles Powers, who, in a Sherman knocked out a Panther near Stoumont Station in exactly this manner; " his shot ricocheted off the gun mantlet and penetrated downwards into the drivers compartment, setting the tank on fire"

Funny how you can remember reading stuff like that but can't recall what you had for breakfast.

This action is also mentioned in 'BotB Then and Now' p170.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Re the mantlet "chin": could that have been an over engineered solution to a rarely encountered problem? (Like zimmerit?)

I have some books on Panther repair work. I wonder if there are any stats on roof penetrations under the mantlet?

It sure looks like the round mantlet could cause a ricochet, but did they? Most rounds impacting would be about 3" in diameter, not a reflecting line. Could that have jammed the round against the opposing surfaces? (Not literally...)

If you can find some statistics on the frequency that would be great. But I've never seen any and am dubious that they exist.

Although the likelihood is somewhat speculative there does not seem to be any debate that shot traps did in fact trap shots I have a book, Panther vs Sherman by Steven Zaloga that has a picture of a Panther used by the US for testing. There is a hit along the lower edge of the mantlet that the caption says ricocheted down onto the hull. That page is viewable online via Google books: Link

Although the Panther had an especially bad shot trap it wasn't the only tank that had one. The Tiger I did too. The only Tiger I in the world still in working condition was captured after being disabled by a hit on the turret ring that ricocheted off the bottom edge of the mantlet (pic below)

Would a higher velocity round have a better ricochet chance?

I don't know. Not that I am aware of. For what it's worth, Rexford once said that size and shape of the projectile is a factor:

We know that ricochet kills occurred but there really isn't a large database with ranges and what type of ammo and range.

37mm APCBC ricochet kills seem far-fetched, long thin 37mm rounds would probably bend and fly off at a weird angle

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=334656&postcount=4

This is why modern tank designs don't worry about shot traps much anymore.

If the Panther were hull down, would that change the hit location? (Aiming at center of visible mass.)

It changes hit distribution. I tested with the Panthers partially hull-down behind a 1 meter berm because that pushes the visible center of mass aim point up towards the turret, which greatly speeds up testing :cool:

Tiger 131 hit location (6 lbr fired from a Churchhill tank):

[Amizaur]

Hm, the "straight" penetration of hull top armor at this angle should be just impossible.

The shell descent angle is very, very small (I guess it's minus 1-2deg).

Som maybe it was a shot-trap activated only it doesn't show ricochet text because - for example - it's almost instantly overwritten by penetration text ?

It would be nice if there was any way to SLOW DOWN RealTime gameplay in CMx2 by x10 or by x100, for test purposes .

Is there any way to slowdown a process in windows and would such trick work on CMx2 engine at all ?

[Saferight]

Hm, the "straight" penetration of hull top armor at this angle should be just impossible.

The shell descent angle is very, very small (I guess it's minus 1-2deg).

Som maybe it was a shot-trap activated only it doesn't show ricochet text because - for example - it's almost instantly overwritten by penetration text ?

It would be nice if there was any way to SLOW DOWN RealTime gameplay in CMx2 by x10 or by x100, for test purposes .

Is there any way to slowdown a process in windows and would such trick work on CMx2 engine at all ?

I think you could record a video an slow it down with video editing software but I could be wrong.

[Amizaur]

I think you could record a video an slow it down with video editing software but I could be wrong.

Yes, it's some kind of "slomo" but it would not slow-down below the framerate limit.

If some event was shorter than a single frame, it would not be catched.

[Saferight]

Yes, it's some kind of "slomo" but it would not slow-down below the framerate limit.

If some event was shorter than a single frame, it would not be catched.

Well dare I say it perhaps CM requires a "Bullet Time" setting a la Max Payne/Matrix...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Som maybe it was a shot-trap activated only it doesn't show ricochet text because - for example - it's almost instantly overwritten by penetration text ?

Not true. On the rare occasions I have seen ricochet penetration in the past the "RICOCHET" hit text is displayed on the hull penetration. The exact text is "RICOCHET: FORWARD TOP HULL PENETRATION" (I wrote it down )

[womble]

I have seen 2 "ricochet into top armour" kills of Panthers. Both of them were the first AT hit the allies scored in the scenario. One was the first AT shot. Most irritating. Both were ages ago, CMBN 1.01 or so.

[Vanir Ausf B]

In May of last year I tested partial hull down Panther As at range 107 meters. Out of 469 hits on the mantlet I got one ricochet penetration.

When I was doing hit location testing on the Tiger and Panther in June of last year I recorded one ricochet penetration out of 1129 hits on the Panther mantlet. The testing was done on Panther Ds at various ranges and hull positions. The one ricochet took place against a partial hull down tank at 100 meters.

So adding in the test from this thread I have 2 ricochet penetrations out of 2234 hits. I would say you were extraordinary unlucky, Womble

[womble]

So adding in the test from this thread I have 2 ricochet penetrations out of 2234 hits. I would say you were extraordinary unlucky, Womble

Or I've fought a lot of battles with massed ranks of Panthers where I quit after turn 1 if none of the Allies got a lucky hit... No, both were scenarios in Panzer Marsch, I believe.

[Battlefront.com]

Not terribly surprising, there's a problem with the test. A common problem is people see a result in a test and don't first consider if there might be a problem with the test itself.

In this case the Panthers are hull down just enough that the hits on the mantlet impact above the line where there's a shot trap potential. With this in play, the test results are irrelevant to the notion that there is a shot trap problem.

In fact, Charles moved the Panthers in the test forward a little bit and 33 seconds later got his first shot trap upper hull penetration.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't understand. The Panthers are only partial hull down. Meaning only the lower hull is obscured. During my testing I saw many hits on the upper hull, which is below the shot trap. The entire mantlet is visible and pretty much in the middle of the visible center of mass.

By "move forward" do you mean he reduced the range from 800 meters?

[Battlefront.com]

Range isn't an issue, it's the hull down blockage. As I said, as soon as the blockage was taken out of the equation the shot trap was quickly seen in action. That disproves whatever theory you developed about the shot trap not having an effect. It does.

Now, if you want to change your theory that there's something wrong with how hull down affects hits, that's a totally different thing. Though this one test isn't sufficient to establish a problem.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Now, if you want to change your theory that there's something wrong with how hull down affects hits, that's a totally different thing.

In that case, yes, I will change my theory.

Here are two pics of one of the test Panthers taken from directly in front of one of the Sherman tanks at 800 meters, zoomed in 20x so as to be visible. The first pic is from view level 1, the bottom pic from view level 2 (about level with the Sherman main gun). The shaded area on the underside of the mantlet is the approximate area of the shot trap, which I have highlighted in red in the second pic. I don't seen any reason why that little mound obscuring the lower hull should prevent hits several feet above on the lower mantlet.

Though this one test isn't sufficient to establish a problem.

Any suggestions?