Ari Maenpaa Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 I made some more testing with 88L71 (in Nashorn) against Pershing’s glacis plate. Beta24 version of CM was used. Nashorn was placed face to face with Pershing on open ground. Pershing couldn’t and didn’t move from it’s place even though it wasn’t dug in. Nashorn was also stationary. Both crews were elite. I discounted broking shells and weak point penetrations. There were much more shell broking than weak spot penetrations even at 300 meters range so my results tend to show 88’s performance in better light than it actually was. At 750 meters range – of 20 glacis plate hits, 1 penetrated and 19 ricocheted. 650 m – 9 penetrated and 11 ricocheted. 550 m – 11 penetrated, 9 ricocheted. 450 m – 13 penetrated, 7 ricocheted. 300 m – 17 penetrated, 3 ricocheted. Now, gentlemen, I would ask what exactly makes you think that Pershing’s glacis plate should be penetrated by 88L71 up to 2000m range? Is there convincing historical evidence of that? And IF there is… well, we know that CM doesn’t give the long 88 as much punch as the original German tests indicated it to have. But even if it did, I doubt that it would make any radical changes to my test results. And if the possible glitch isn’t in the gun’s performance, then: does the Pershing have unnaturally strong glacis plate in CM? Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 It's hard to cater to those that adopt the German 88 uberkiller doctrine and make a game that is fun to play. I am not well versed on the whole glacis plate -vs- 88 at x range debate... but I wonder exactly what people want here. Everyone who plays the Germans wants super German optics on 88s that can reliably target and penetrate a Super Pershing at 2000 meters. Well, 88s in practice were no where near that super human. Reliable? Yes. Versatile? Definitely yes. But it was NOT a dead cinch killer... or at least to the degree that many here seem to think it was. Hell, if it was that good, they would have won the war! Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar: I am not well versed on the whole glacis plate -vs- 88 at x range debate... but I wonder exactly what people want here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have said this before, but for me the most important factor in a game like CM is it's historical autheticity. Naturally there are many things which can be only roughly abstracted in the game, but I don't think that armor penetration/persistence is one of those. So IF in reality 88L71 could penetrate Pershing’s glacis plate at +1500 meters with no problem, then shouldn't that very much be the case in CM too? What is the point otherwise. We could as well play something like Ground Control where different warmachines with different abilities are balanced together almost perfectly. Of course they don’t reflect anything historical. In CM I want to see an excellent HISTORICAL game. Not just an excellent game. When any "balancing" between different arms is needed, then it should be done by modifying the point costs, NOT by compromising an arm’s performance just for the sake of other arms, because that would make historical events impossible to happen in the game world. Something like gun's armor penetration performance is very easy to test in CM. This and similar things I often put in test when I read/heard something new for instance from this excellent forum. In this case the Pershing’s current armor protection model has been questioned by a great margin and I would like to know if there in CM is something to correct. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Everyone who plays the Germans wants super German optics on 88s that can reliably target and penetrate a Super Pershing at 2000 meters. Well, 88s in practice were no where near that super human. Reliable? Yes. Versatile? Definitely yes. But it was NOT a dead cinch killer... or at least to the degree that many here seem to think it was. Hell, if it was that good, they would have won the war! Joe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. I don’t think that an AT-gun, no matter how good, could have won the war for Germans. And we are talking about the basic Pershing, not it’s bigger cousin. Super Pershing has even thicker glacis (why they boosted the original, if it already was this effective?) and is, btw, armed with the most powerful AT-gun in the whole game by far. At least penetrationwise. And also I don’t think that people want 88s with uber-performance and super optics just because they play the German side. At least not all. In general I feel that it’s because they have read and heard that the long 88 was enough to stop even the biggest enemy tanks with ease. CM has surprised me, and many others, countless times by showing how weak those German uber-tanks can be. Just for clarification: I haven’t any evidence that 88L71 ever penetrated Pershing’s glacis plate at +1500m range. I’m just curious to see it. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 The thing is, most of what you hear and read about weapon performance is either exagerated for dramatics, or taken from the performance of a gun under optimal conditions, etc. If an 88 can punch through x amount of armor, that doesn't mean that a glancing blow won't bounce off. I have always had a sneaking suspission that most of what you read in these "Aromo(u)r or WWII" books wouldn't be replicated if you saw the stuff in action in the actuall war. But then, most history we read is a bit skewed to the mythical. But it has always been that way, for as long as we recorded history. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted January 4, 2001 Share Posted January 4, 2001 Polar, Generally I agree what you said. However in this particular case two forum participants, both who I have learnt to be VERY knowledgeable, have given a statement which is in conflict with the game by a considerable margin. It seems that the problem isn't necessarily with the performance of the German guns, but that the cast armor is considered too strong in CM's terms. Naturally it can be the combination of these both factors. I would like to see this cleared up, because I think that it may have an effect on many other vehicles too. Not just on the Pershing. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 4, 2001 Share Posted January 4, 2001 Well, my point is, until you get a working persisng on one side of a field, and an 88 on the other, and have them duke it out, you will not see one way or the other. And even THAT won't truely measure how effective the armor or the gun would be. The thing about armor is that generally (and esspecially in 1945) the strength is in the angles. If the 88 were to impact the glacis at a perfectly perpendicular trajectory, then the my guess is it would penetrate anything. But it gets tough (esspecially in an abstracted game) what angle it is hitting at... I'll accept that the armor is softer on the glacis yaddayaddayadda.... I just think that this is part of the problem with lack of war games in the market. I could make a near perfect game (as BTS has done) and still get bombarded by demands on changing the color of the stain on the wood stock of the M1 Garand. Nobody who demands that their 4th person interpretation of any given subject is the ONLY interpretation will ever be happy. I think all of us need to realize the difference between bugs and design descisions. And the fact that the Pershing wasn't killed 90% of the time from glacis hits is probably not a bug, and probably closer to reality then what people want here. Live with what the game gives you and build your strategy accordingly. I, for instance, KNOW that I need to pour fire on a Tiger at the expense of all else if I want to knock it out. Why??? Because the more angles you fire on, the less chance of the Tiger reducing those angles (closing the angle to one gun will open it to another). Maybe German players need to respect the Pershing more than they care too. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts