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  
rexford

Panther Glacis Quality on Eastern Front

Recommended Posts

The IS-2 development notes on the subject web site suggest that Panther armor decreased in quality during the Summer of 1944 (see following web page: [url=http://history.vif2.ru/is2_1.html):]

"Further, after the first encounters between the JS-2 and German heavy tanks, it turned out that the sharp-nosed 122 mm APHE round - the BR-471 - could only penetrate the frontal armour of a Panther up to 600-700 metres. The less powerful frontal armour of a Tiger could be penetrated at distances up to 1200 metres. However, at such distances only very well trained and experienced gunners could score a hit. The vertical armour of a Tiger I, although thicker than that of a Panther, was more easily defeated by the sharp-nosed projectile of the JS-2 Main Gun, whilst it often ricocheted off the sloped armour of a Panther. Later, Soviet designers noticed the blunt-nosed projectiles worked fine against sloped armour. After several tests, designers revealed the effect of "normalisation" (Read more about "normalization" effect here). The powerful HE round, OF-471, when fired at German tanks, caused cracking and could even completely tear off the front armour plate at the seam weld. The first results of the IS-2 in combat (backed by the results of its tests at the Kubinka testing grounds in January of 1944) forced designers to look for new solutions to its problems.

However, in the summer of 1944, the problem of the poor AP performance disappeared. The performance of the D-25T gun of the JS-2 against the German tanks improved dramatically. The reports from the front described cases where the BR-471 APHE round 122 mm projectile fired from 2500 metres ricocheted off the front armour of a Panther leaving huge holes and cracks in it."

The Allies also noted poor performance of Panther glacis during the summer of 1944, two of three Panther glacis at Isigny crack after a few 17 pounder APCBC hits and American analysis of glacis metal shows brittle characteristics and low impact resistance.

It would seem from the above that Panther glacis plate armor was fine until mid-1944, and then brittle or reduced effectiveness armor may have appeared on both the Eastern and European Fronts.

British analysis of Tiger and Panther armor prior to 1944 states that it was good with an occasional bad plate.

If the slope multipliers for Allied solid shot AP are applied to Panther glacis, the resistance equals about 168mm for 80mm at 55 degrees armor, which is penetrated by 122mm AP at 625m, close to Russian combat experience of 600 to 700 meters.

Since the AP analysis does not assume any loss in armor resistance, it suggests good quality ductile armor resistance during the initial IS-2 vs Panther engagements where the 122mm gun was used, which may have included cold weather battles (Panther armor would have performed well despite cold, attesting to good quality).

Blunt nose 122mm APBC would penetrate 80mm at 55 degrees beyond 1500m, which is slightly larger than what the Russians reported.

Bottom line is the Eastern Front combat model for Panther might assume good quality armor till summer of 1944, and then assign reduced quality modifiers to a percentage of the Panther glacis armor.

U.S. firing tests against the rest of the Panther armor (besides glacis), and Russian statements regarding Panther non-glacis armor, indicate good quality.

The percentage of Panthers that would be impacted by armor changes is not known.

[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: rexford ]</p>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summary of previous post:

1. Panther glacis sound till summer of '44 (quality is 1.00 prior to that time)

2. Starting summer '44, Panther glacis appears to lose something resulting in more fragile nature and increased penetration ranges

3. Not well known what percentage of Panthers have deficient glacis armor

4. IS-2 tanks shoot AP and APBC from their guns in unknown mix, earliest IS-2 fire sharp nose AP exclusively, it would seem

5. Russians unaware of superior slope effects of blunt nose APBC until it goes through good quality Panther glacis at 1200m, when they run tests to see what is happening

6. Russian uncapped AP appears to use same slope effects as American and British solid shot AP:

slope multipliers equal (^ raises term to immediate left by factor to right of sign):

65 degrees: 2.91 (T/D)^0.1864

45-60 degrees: (0.715 x 1.02^(angle))x (T/D)^(0.0779 x 1.0095^(angle))

40 degrees: previous equation x 1.05

30 degrees: 45-60 degrees equation x 0.95

7. penetration tests at Kubinka suggest that Panther glacis loses more than 15% of resistance when it is hit by 122mm APBC, due to plate problems

8. Russian experience during summer of '44 consistent with U.S. tests at Isigny during August '44 and metallurgical analysis of one Panther glacis (low impact resistance and brittle structure)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question in regards to the HE rounds cracking the plate at its welds. In "Death Traps" the subject of poor German welds is brought up. Cooper examined one of the KTs abandoned after they mauled a task force at Paderborn. It had been hit on the corner of the glacis by a white phosphorus shell. The plate had cracked the welds at that corner just from a measley little 75mm WP shell. Cooper then explains why the welds broke so easily. Apparently the normal way to fix two plates together is to have the edges that are to be welded together kind of tapered so that a triangle shaped gap is formed between the plates.

Kind of like this

______ ______

______\/______

The weld is started on the wedge until it's filled. Then the welder moves to the back side and runs another bead on the back, thus making it a solid piece. Apparently the Germans in an attempt to speed production just laid the pieces end to end and just ran a bead on the outside, not bothering to weld the middle or back. Is there any chance the Germans started this method in the summer of '44?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rexford:

It would seem from the above that Panther glacis plate armor was fine until mid-1944, and then brittle or reduced effectiveness armor may have appeared on both the Eastern and European Fronts.<hr></blockquote>

OMG. It now appears that CM in not 100% totally wrong after all (only 97.3% wrong).

Anybody seen TSword? This will be a terrible swift revelation for him.

WARNING: The preceeding post may contain sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess about the 122mm HE round is that AP hits were bouncing off the glacis armor beyond about 650 meters, and HE was a reasonable attempt to disrupt the crew or tank optics. Firing HE at a Tiger or Panther was always a decent tactic if one was cornered, 105mm or larger HE would blow off track pieces or damage wheels with near misses.

The terrific impact from 122mm HE probably would crack some welds and might loosen some glacis plates. I would guess that maybe SU 152's starting hitting Panthers and Tigers with HE during 1943 and some of the damage suggested same tactic might work with 122mm HE.

I will soon be sent some data regarding German weld material. The Germans used high carbon steel which can create welding problems. It appears that the weld material quality may have decreased during the war. Tiger II was supposed to use highest quality weld material. Lower quality weld material may have been used starting January 1944.

American analysis of Tiger and Panther notes brittle nature of welds, hitting with a hammer can bust some welds.

I'll ask about weld shapes on German vehicles, interesting questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×