WW II Gun vs Armor Penetration Calculator

[John Kettler]

Brother George sent me this little marvel. You Decide which nation's weapon is shooting at what, select the target portion, and have it calculate. It generates a chart much like the much missed penetration plots from CMx1 How cool is that? David Boyd created WW II Equipent.com this year. It's focused chiefly on British weapons, which receive so little coverage on the treadhead sites. Nor is it just AFVs. Under infantry weapons, he's already got an article on the Blacker Bombard. It was Blacker whose spigot mortar work ultimately armed the Churchill AVRE with the "Flying Dustbin" which was designed to destroy beach obstacles and pillboxes.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Heinrich505]

John,

  Just checked it out.  Pretty slick.  Thanks for sharing.

Heinrich505

[John Kettler]

Heinrich505,

Given all the lamentation and breast beating over the lack of such plots in CMx2, I'm surprised yours has been the only response so far. I do note there is now a second thread on the self same Penetration Calculator. Go figure!

Regards,

John Kettler

[JoMac]

Damn...Where was this Chart when I was playing TRACTICS yrs ago...Sigh (TRACTICS, Penetration Charts is just a little...way off).

[Bulletpoint]

7 hours ago, John Kettler said:

I'm surprised yours has been the only response so far. I do note there is now a second thread on the self same Penetration Calculator. Go figure!

I think it's a very interesting tool, but I didn't comment on your thread because the tool was shared by some other fellow some time ago. I think probably many players were alreay aware of it. Thanks for sharing anyway

[StieliAlpha]

To add a little spice to the discussion:

I don't see much pratical gaming value in such cards anyway. In game, it does not matter much, what can penetrate what under which angle or distance. Ok, distance matters, that's a factor one can influence. But then, I assume everybody playing knows, that a "37mm AT is not helpful on 1000m distance". The rest is common sense and gut feeling. If in doubt, shoot.

If you shoot (under reasonable conditions), you MAY hit SOMETHING. If not, you CERTAINLY won't.

[Bulletpoint]

20 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

But then, I assume everybody playing knows, that a "37mm AT is not helpful on 1000m distance"

I think sometimes we forget not everybody is highly knowledgeable about WW2 weapons  

Personally, I find the tool very useful for questions like "Can my 57mm AT gun penetrate the front of the enemy tank, or will I absolutely need a flanking shot? If so, at what ranges can I expect success?" This info then helps me set up the basic outline of my defence.

[StieliAlpha]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think sometimes we forget not everybody is highly knowledgeable about WW2 weapons  

Personally, I find the tool very useful for questions like "Can my 57mm AT gun penetrate the front of the enemy tank, or will I absolutely need a flanking shot? If so, at what ranges can I expect success?" This info then helps me set up the basic outline of my defence.

I know, you are thinking too much.?

Somewhere I read: Who fights with the book in his hands, dies with the book in his hands...

No really, to take your example: Normally you do not know, what is coming anyway. Therefore, I would just try to find the "best spot" for the AT, considering range, field of fire and protection. And if a King Tiger comes and no better target is available: Fire. Even if the AT has no chance to kill the beast, it may scratch it. Or at least distract your opponent.

[Erwin]

Generally it's best to let the AI decide whether to fire or not.   IT "knows" much better than we players the best range and angle or whether it can do damage etc. 

That actually is what put me off CM2 (vs CM1) when CMSF first came out.  It seemed that a lot of things were going on that the player had no control over.  Units firing at targets that the player couldn't see etc. 

[StieliAlpha]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Generally it's best to let the AI decide whether to fire or not.   IT "knows" much better than we players the best range and angle or whether it can do damage etc. 

That actually is what put me off CM2 (vs CM1) when CMSF first came out.  It seemed that a lot of things were going on that the player had no control over.  Units firing at targets that the player couldn't see etc. 

Good point.

[Bulletpoint]

22 hours ago, Erwin said:

Generally it's best to let the AI decide whether to fire or not.   IT "knows" much better than we players the best range and angle or whether it can do damage etc. 

Actually I think a light AT gun will just open fire at any armour it spots, at any range (at least the ranges we get to work with in this game), and at any angle.

[Erwin]

So, maybe it hopes to damage the tank's optics.  However, does the ATG die quickly after the first shot?

[Bulletpoint]

16 hours ago, Erwin said:

So, maybe it hopes to damage the tank's optics.  However, does the ATG die quickly after the first shot?

Only if the tank spots it. I once had a King Tiger sit patiently and get peppered by a small ATG for about 5 minutes until it finally figured out where the nuisance was.

[Erwin]

Were any systems damaged by the nuisance ATG?   (If not, then it's probably a "bug" that the ATG would waste itself.)

[StieliAlpha]

On 6.8.2017 at 5:21 PM, Erwin said:

So, maybe it hopes to damage the tank's optics.  However, does the ATG die quickly after the first shot?

That's about the "philosophy" I described.  Shoot and hope to hit something.

Re Bulletpoints King Tiger example: The sight from those old tanks was very restricted and the TC may have thought "An oak must not worry, if a wild hog scratches on it's bark." ?

[Erwin]

Yes, and "If the Pope shiites in the forest, and no one walks alone, does anyone know?" 

Re getting a useful and easy to use info, buy the three CM1 games (well CMBB at least) which all feature invaluable onscreen info re HE power, penetration data for every weapon system.   Huge loss that this wasn't done in CM2.