Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them
Sign in to follow this  
Bulletpoint

How thick was the Jpz IV mantlet? Noticed it's vulnerable in game..

Recommended Posts

The ever-watchful bug eye has fallen on the Jpz IV ;)

I noticed that in a recent game, a Jpz IV took a lot of 57mm AT-gun hits directly from the front at short range, and all shots bounced off, except for those that hit the mantlet straight on. 5 penetrations on the mantlet, none on the rest of the tank.

As the armour on the "snout" is extremely sloped against hits from the front, those penetrations seem odd to me, but I haven't been able to find any sources on the thickness of that armour piece.

Anyone has the info?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If War Thunder is to be believed (;)) the mantlet attached to the gun is 75 mm and the immovable part behind it is 80 mm.  Their effective thickness, taking in to account the angle from straight on, is 111 and 207 mm, respectively.  Take this for what it is... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, according to one of my Miniature War-games Rules the Jpz IV Short has 60mm sloped Hull @ 45-50 degrees-ish, and Mantlet has 80mm sloped @ 45 degrees-ish.

Keep this in perspective with the Jpz IV 70 Long, which has 80mm Sloped Hull @ 45-50 degrees-ish, and Mantlet about the same. 

I wonder if many hits in CM to the Mantlet are partial penetrations (in the sense that it penetrates the initial Outer Weapons Mount, but not the inner)...So, you may see penetrations listed, but in affect it's not penetrating fully into the Fighting Compartment, and Vehicle is still Ok.

Edited by JoMc67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks. This is with the Jpz IV (late) 75mm L/48.

Another interesting thing was that the penetrations on the mantlet make a hole, but they don't give any penetration message! They all say "Hit: Weapon Mount"...

It's being shot at from 361m distance, and the enemy AT gun is placed straight in front, but at a lower elevation. This should further increase the angle of impact when hitting the top of the mantlet..

 

Edited by Bulletpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Thanks. According to this website, the Jpz should be invulnerable from the front against US 57mm AP shot, at all ranges. My example takes place at 361 metres.

Another interesting thing was that the penetrations on the mantlet make a hole, but they don't give any penetration message! They all say "Hit: Weapon Mount"...

 

(This is with the Jpz IV (late) 75mm L/48)

Yeah, see what I wrote above, and that's my guess of what's happening...It's probably how the Mechanics work in CM.

Edited by JoMc67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

the Jpz IV Short has 60mm sloped Hull @ 45-50 degrees-ish, and Mantlet has 80mm sloped @ 45 degrees-ish.

So if the mantlet is thinker than the front hull, and both are angled about the same, the mantlet should be stronger than the hull (unless it's made of soft metal?). But in my tests that I'm looking at right now, the mantlet gets penetrated by every single shot, and the hull deflects every single hit.

And all these mantlet hits leave a hole, but NO penetration message. The tank is not damaged inside, only the gun was knocked out by the very first hit.

I can't remember ever seeing a tank get a visually represented hole anywhere without the penetration message, so something tells me there's a technical issue here.

Edited by Bulletpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

So if the mantlet is thinker than the front hull, and both are angled about the same, the mantlet should be stronger than the hull (unless it's made of soft metal?). But in my tests that I'm looking at right now, the mantlet gets penetrated by every single shot, and the hull deflects every single hit.

And all these mantlet hits leave a hole, but NO penetration message. The tank is not damaged inside, only the gun was knocked out by the very first hit.

I can't remember ever seeing a tank get a visually represented hole anywhere without the penetration message, so something tells me there's a technical issue here.

Hmm, Huston, I believe we might have a problem, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

Hmm, Huston, I believe we might have a problem, then.

Well, a savegame is available  if anybody more knowledable than I would like to take a look at it.

Update: Even more interesting.. Some of the hits that make holes still show the shot bounce off and fly away. So it penetrates and doesn't penetrate at the same time :huh:

Edited by Bulletpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Just a thought, but could the rounds be penetrating and jamming the mantlet? 

This would KO the gun, but otherwise not harm the vehicle, as described by @Bulletpoint.

In theory yes, but I f they penetrate, why is there no penetration message?

Also why is the tip of the snout mantlet the most vulnerable point - it seems to be the part that should be the strongest against fire from the front?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

In theory yes, but I f they penetrate, why is there no penetration message?

Because the fighting compartment itself is not penetrated, just the mantlet.

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Also why is the tip of the snout mantlet the most vulnerable point - it seems to be the part that should be the strongest against fire from the front?

Not a Scooby.....Makes no sense to me either, just offering possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Also why is the tip of the snout mantlet the most vulnerable point - it seems to be the part that should be the strongest against fire from the front?

Not a Scooby.....Makes no sense to me either, just offering possibilities.

It's all good, I just forget to add a smiley sometimes :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I've got a Spielberger text on the Jagdpanzer IV.....I'll take a look later for any known vulnerabilities, but I don't ever recall seeing it mentioned as a weak spot in the past (other than the shape of it in Dragon's kits, but that's a discussion for another forum).  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The JPz IV mantlet has two sections and there is an air gap between at least the outer edge of the first section and the second. At least some of the apparent penetrations are penetrating the outer plate and then getting stopped by the inner plate. You can sometimes see the two hit decals if you ghost the camera through the vehicle. When a shell strikes two plates in rapid succession only the hit text for the second impact is displayed.

The problem is that everything that get past that first section is knocking out the main cannon. That seems hard to justify so I have logged it as a bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The JPz IV mantlet has two sections and there is an air gap between at least the outer edge of the first section and the second. At least some of the apparent penetrations are penetrating the outer plate and then getting stopped by the inner plate. You can sometimes see the two hit decals if you ghost the camera through the vehicle. When a shell strikes two plates in rapid succession only the hit text for the second impact is displayed.

The problem is that everything that get past that first section is knocking out the main cannon. That seems hard to justify so I have logged it as a bug.

Thanks for taking a look.

You find the penetrations of the mantlet to be in line with what can be expected of this plate and angle of impact?

Again, I'm no expert, but that part seems awfully thick and well angled against hits coming in head on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

You find the penetrations of the mantlet to be in line with what can be expected of this plate and angle of impact?

I don't think any of those hits should make it into the interior of the vehicle. Since they don't appear to be making it that far I don't see a problem there. The gun damage is another matter.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The damage to the mantlet might plausibly take the gun out of battery, even if the mantlet stops the round it's still absorbing a lot of energy.....Haven't had a chance to look at Spielberger or similar yet (up to my neck in Shermans), but I will.  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could be seeing something related to the old 'King Tiger Mantlet' bug, where the armor of tubular shaped mantlets wasn't being counted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a look in the obvious places and the only notable comments are the usual ones about the vehicle being front heavy, there's a comment about a number of prototype designs before the Saukopf was settled on and a picture of a type I'd never noticed before (which I can't currently find online), but nothing about any notable weakness. 

In a fair few pictures of KOed JgPz.IVs the mantlet has gone missing:

z8ki2gw.jpg

But equally often it's often the last thing to go:

e1c23af83184556a68fe7c49e298b1a4.jpg

Found these in a WT forum, possibly of interest, relevance:

TTXyc3A.png

FOvt8ok.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Found these in a WT forum, possibly of interest, relevance:

TTXyc3A.png

This picture shows the mantlet to be much thicker and more sloped than the frontal armour. In my test, shots go through the mantlet all the time, but in no cases penetrate the front hull.

Edited by Bulletpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's not an armour thickness diagram, it's showing a profile of the mantlet rather than a section through it, the saukopf is a complex thing but the other diagram summarises its thickness at 80mm approx. with 30mm of armour behind it.  The main gun mount surrounding the aperture looks to be 80mm approx. too, which IIRC matches the frontal armour figure for a late L48 or a L70.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×