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

Recommended Posts

Oh boy WW2 era typical kinetic rounds are something entirely different for sure, essentially being oversized bullets. But there also some sabot rounds present here and there.

Would a 57mm APDS fired from a Churchill IV even compare to a 75mm slug fired from Sherman? Would a 76 mm brit M10 APDS outperform an 88mm German AP round?

Surely even during a relative infancy of sabot rounds they should pose a huge threat due to smaller mass, better acceleration and the devastating force focus in a very small point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

57mm APDS had vastly better AP qualities than the AP round from the 75mm.....That's why Churchill III*, IV & VI (if I have my numbers right) were added to many 75mm equipped units (about 1 per platoon, not necessarily all platoons).

All the figures are available online, just use your Google-Fu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember the 17lbr APDS was devastating, if it could connect with the target. Accuracy left much to be desired but penetration would take care of the big cats with no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, thanks. They indeed seem to be very deadly... but the low count of APDS in a loadout and a subpar performance of a 57mm AP however makes IV a rather "glass cannon"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall  shortly after introduction of the APFSDS dart round in the late 70s the US Army finally admitted  when firing 90mm APDS from their M48s a round would sometimes just fly off at an odd angle.  If the subcaliber core didn't separate cleanly from the sabot it could be knocked badly off course.

If you're talking 88 you need to specify which. The 88 KwK36 L/56 on the Tiger 1 wasn't much better than Panther's 75mm. There were plans to mount the Panther gun in the Tiger 1 turret but they decided against it due to the large stockpile of 88 ammo. Russia produced 30mm thick T34-76 bow applique armor that was said to make the bow 88-proof. It wasn't very common because it overloaded the front suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What made 88mm L/56 not present any real advantage over german 75mm? Shouldn't the punch get increased proportionally? I certainly didn't see Churchill stop a hit from 88mm on its frontal armor I think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Penetration of rolled homogeneous armor at 0° at 750 meters, in millimeters:

US 75L40 (Sherman):

  • AP: 84
  • APCBC: 77

UK 57mm

  • AP: 100
  • APCBC: 96
  • APDS: 150

UK 76mm/17 Pdr

  • AP: 160
  • APCBC: 156
  • APDS: 244

German 75L70

  • APCBC: 158
  • APCR (rare): 216

German 88L71:

  • APCBC: 211
  • APCR (very rare): 269

 

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a bit comparing apples and oranges but:

88 Flak36

  • APCBC: 129mm (500 yards), 118mm (100 yards)

...which would be frighteningly impressive circa 1941 but other guns quickly caught up and surpassed it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sherman HE was notably superior to both Panther and 17 pounder because the high velocity guns demanded thicker shell walls which resulted in less HE filler. I read somewhere long ago that Brits ranked the 17 pounder poorly as an 'all-purpose' tank gun due to the inferior HE rounds

Another round US tankers praised in reports to [edit: 'Eisenhower'] himself was the good-old smoke round, believe it or not. I read an AAR involving New Zealand Shermans versus Tigers in Italy near  war's end. I was shocked to read half of the shells in the Sherman's ready rack were smoke shells. What??!! :o

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering Sherman's inferiority in direct combat versus german big cats I take it they used smoke to outright blind enemy tanks and cover their flanking maneuvers so they had any chance of striking weak spots. Would make sense.

I've read somewhere that otherwise before Shermans would take out a Tiger head on they would lose 5 tanks and by that time the 6th one will be able to get into a good striking position

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, but it's always worth chucking some HE into the mix too.

If they were lucky a green German Panther crew might see the dense smoke from a WP round coming through the ventilators and, assuming their tank to be ablaze, bail out.....Straight into the HE round that follows it.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone

it's my first intervention!!

I spoke with a former tankman of the 2nd AD Leclerc, during the fighting in the pocket of Falaise, the French were with the Polish of the 24th lancer at the exit NE of Chambois

He explained to me that they hired panthers on the ridge at over 2000 m with WPs to set them on fire,

He remembered burning one

they hited the horse-drawn convoys with the same ammunition! Gruesome !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/01/2018 at 7:18 AM, MikeyD said:

Its a bit comparing apples and oranges but:

88 Flak36

  • APCBC: 129mm (500 yards), 118mm (100 yards)

...which would be frighteningly impressive circa 1941 but other guns quickly caught up and surpassed it.

 

 

Which is why I'm part of the the "Hope we get Mid-Early War CM" brigade. :D Completly different battlefield to experience given the different kit the nations fields. Though granted a Flak36 is scary in any situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've read somewhere that otherwise before Shermans would take out a Tiger head on they would lose 5 tanks

I've read/heard from various sources (probably a British TV show ;)) that that often-quoted statement has been misinterpreted. Tanks normally operate in platoons of five. So EVERYTHING they do it would be five tanks doing it. A Tiger spotted on the hillside? You send a tank platoon (at the very least) to resolve the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

Penetration of rolled homogeneous armor at 0° at 750 meters, in millimeters:

US 75L40 (Sherman):

  • AP: 84
  • APCBC: 77

UK 57mm

  • AP: 100
  • APCBC: 96
  • APDS: 150

UK 76mm/17 Pdr

  • AP: 160
  • APCBC: 156
  • APDS: 244

German 75L70

  • APCBC: 158
  • APCR (rare): 216

German 88L71:

  • APCBC: 211
  • APCR (very rare): 269

 

I find myself wondering why APCBC is consistently performing more poorly in those statistics. If it didn't offer better performance, why develop and field it?

Michael

Share this post


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

I find myself wondering why APCBC is consistently performing more poorly in those statistics. If it didn't offer better performance, why develop and field it?

Michael

Ahh, but keep in mind that the APCBC outperforms the AP against Sloped Armor by a greater margin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Ahh, but keep in mind that the APCBC outperforms the AP against Sloped Armor by a greater margin...

Wasn't it developed to defeat face-hardened armour that would sometimes shatter regular AP shot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "cap" in both APC and APCBC was designed to dig into sloped armor...and was higher hardness so it could have improved effect against hardened armor.

The "BC" was added to APC shells because an aerodynamic shape kept the velocity higher to a greater range, with the concomitant benefits.

I don't think APC had a long usage period once better alternatives were found. It was a stopgap.

 

To @Michael Emrys the effectiveness of APCBC was with sloped armor. The numbers above seem to be at a perpendicular strike angle. In that case, I would suppose that the blunt cap on any capped projectile (APC or APCBC) would be a hindrance when compared to the pointed AP nose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most recent research suggest that against rolled homogeneous armor uncapped AP is better than APC or APCBC whether the armor is sloped or not. That runs counter to prevailing wisdom and calls into question why armor penetrating caps were introduced. APCBC does outperform AP against face-hardened armor and is also better at retaining energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, c3k said:

The "cap" in both APC and APCBC was designed to dig into sloped armor...and was higher hardness so it could have improved effect against hardened armor.

@Michael Emrys

Not to say that you are wrong about that, but what I have read is that the cap was actually made of softer metal with the idea that it was less likely to skid off a sloped surface, allowing the core of the projectile to penetrate.

Either way, it would seem that we agree that APCBC offers significant advantages.

10 hours ago, c3k said:

To @Michael Emrys the effectiveness of APCBC was with sloped armor. The numbers above seem to be at a perpendicular strike angle. In that case, I would suppose that the blunt cap on any capped projectile (APC or APCBC) would be a hindrance when compared to the pointed AP nose. 

That all makes sense.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Found something...

Armor Piercing, Capped (APC)

To increase the armor protection without increasing the armor plate's thickness, and consequently its weight, face hardening the armor plates was common during the Second World War. As the name implies, the face hardening process increases the hardness of the part of the armor plate facing outwards. This increased hardness will make it more difficult for the shell to penetrate the plate, and might even cause it to scatter on impact.

A countermeasure against face hardened plates is to place a cap on a regular armor piercing shell. This cap has a very hard tip, designed to break the hardened face, and a soft steel body, designed to protect the armor piercing shell from the force of impact.

While the actual penetration of the armor piercing shell is in itself the same as that of the uncapped armor piercing shell, the cap is a disadvantage when firing against regular armor plates that are not face hardened. The reason for this is that part of the mass, and therefore kinetic energy, of the shell is located in the cap, which does not aid the penetration of a regular armor plate.

The above is from https://panzerworld.com/anti-tank-ammunition#sources

...and references to a Ft. Sill report.

Edited by c3k

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

×