'Curved' armor tests

[Justin S.]

Id still like to test the survival rate of Panther, hull exposed and hull down, against Russian 85mm. Should I just post it here, or start a new thread? More importantly are any of you interested in seeing the data, or is this just for my own benefit?

[Glider]

I am very interested... will you try with various Panther models (shot trap, occasional armour flaws, frequent armour flaws)?

Also, don't forget that CMBB models early Russian 85mm AP ammo (1943, I think) as very low quality and it *very* frequently shatters on impact even against armour plates it should be able to defeat easily.

As far as general hull-down rules are concerned, I recall a number of tests on panzers whose lower/upper hull can't be penetrated but whose turret front is vulnerable. All of the tests showed that such panzers have better chances of surviving if they are *not* hull down.

[Justin S.]

Glider,

Since youre interested Ill go ahead and run all models of Panthers. I will only use 1944 (late) T-34/85's. First run conditions will be dug in, and hull down behind a small rise (this is because even dug in there are frequent glacis hits which i want to avoid). Starting range is 1000m. I will record first, second, third, and fourth round+ accuracy by the T-34/85's with veteran crew (regular will be too low i think). In addition i will record, of those hits, their effects. Next range will be 500m- same test. After all the data is compiled i should get a curve of hit percentage and penetration percentage of those hits. All models of Panther will be run through this set up.

The next test will be an immobilized group of Panthers with full frontal exposure (i realize one could make it complicated by not exposing the lower hull, but im more interested in survivability when fully exposed). All this exposure talk sounds dirty ...

So on and so forth. Ill just start a new thread on the Panther while im on a roll...

[Redwolf]

Well, if they fixed it between CMBB 1.02 and 1.03 that's very nice but why didn't they tell us? I don't re-test everything on every patch.

I never played Quickbattles in CMAK due to the Allied artillery issue and I never used a plain-plate TD in CMAK either.

[rexford]

If one places a shot so it hits off the side of the front of the curved mantlet on a Hetzer, StuG IIIG or JagdPanther, the round may get squeezed into a channel where it comes into contact with a flat plate area. A shot trap, as was mentioned in another post on this thread.

Regarding the Panther mantlet, it was not uniformly 100mm in thickness but thinned out towards the upper and lower edges, reducing to about 75mm at the edges. The IS-2 mantlet also thins out towards the upper and lower edges.

My analysis used 100mm at all angles, which overstated the armor resistance at some angles but works okay at the larger angles where nothing is going to penetrate anyway.

When I have the time I'll adjust the armor figures for actual thickness changes with angle.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Glider:

As far as general hull-down rules are concerned, I recall a number of tests on panzers whose lower/upper hull can't be penetrated but whose turret front is vulnerable. All of the tests showed that such panzers have better chances of surviving if they are *not* hull down.

When one aims at the front of a Panther the hits concentrate around the center of mass, on the glacis, and hit the mantlet when they scatter about.

When on aims at a hulldown Panther the mantlet center is the center of mass.

But the Panther mantlet is about 2' tall compared to about 8' for the Panther, so the chances of hitting the mantlet are about one-fourth of those for a hit against the entire frontal aspect (turret and hull).

Computer runs for a Tiger firing on a hulldown T34 or M4A3(W)75 Sherman predict that the hulldown hit percentage will be about one-third of the hull exposed rate.

Would be interesting to see if turret front hit % goes up with hulldown target even if overall hit percentage goes down. Will do it soon.

Interesting points on this thread.

[Glider]

...

Would be interesting to see if turret front hit % goes up with hulldown target even if overall hit percentage goes down. Will do it soon...

It definitely does.

There were several tests done, particularly for late Pz IV (80mm front hull armour but just 50mm front turret).

After some extensive testing against 76mm T-34s (which can punch through 50mm turret but not through 80mm hull armour of Pz IVs) it turned out that Pz IVs should not go to hull down positions when facing T-34/76s.

In other words - tank with vulnerable turrets and invulnerable hull armour should avoid hull-down positions since the kill probability of the hull-down position:

- reduced overall hit probability but every shot hits the weak turret

is greater than the kill probability in the non-hull-down position:

- greater overall hit probability but many of the shots hit the tough front hull armour instead of the weak turret.

[Justin S.]

Originally posted by Glider:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...

Would be interesting to see if turret front hit % goes up with hulldown target even if overall hit percentage goes down. Will do it soon...

It definitely does.

There were several tests done, particularly for late Pz IV (80mm front hull armour but just 50mm front turret).

After some extensive testing against 76mm T-34s (which can punch through 50mm turret but not through 80mm hull armour of Pz IVs) it turned out that Pz IVs should not go to hull down positions when facing T-34/76s.

In other words - tank with vulnerable turrets and invulnerable hull armour should avoid hull-down positions since the kill probability of the hull-down position:

- reduced overall hit probability but every shot hits the weak turret

is greater than the kill probability in the non-hull-down position:

- greater overall hit probability but many of the shots hit the tough front hull armour instead of the weak turret. </font>