Vanir Ausf B

Also, keep in mind there was a fair amount of variation in properties of armor plate from vehicle to vehicle, particularly in Soviet tanks, but also in German. Not all T-34 upper front hulls were exactly 45mm thick and 450 BHN. Ammunition quality also varied. Any calculated result will only be a typical result in real life. But it will be a very good predictor of results in CM where vehicle and ammunition quality is constant, assuming the numbers the game uses are the same.

A partial penetration is still penetration. Regardless of that, I wouldn't put too much stock into a singe shot. All of the other hits you mentioned were clean penetrations. Keep in mind that the thickness and slope of the T-34 upper and lower hull armor plates are that same.

Those are calculated results, as are mine. The difference is the ones from wa prüf 1 don't appear to match actual results. The OP links to a test that reportedly shows the Tiger penetrating the T-34 upper hull at 1500 meters at an oblique angle of 20°. Adding 10 more degrees to the oblique angle isn't going to suddenly reduce that effective range down to 100 meters. Effective resistance of 45mm armor at 60° from vertical and 30° off-set (64° compound angle) vs 88mm APCBC is 142mm without the high-hardness modifier. The Tiger penetrates 144mm at 750 meters. The high-hardness modifier reduces the effective resistance to 105mm.

T-34 upper front hull armor is 45mm at 60° on all models. It was the front turret and mantlet that was progressively up-armored. 20° oblique angle only increases the compound angle to 62°. At that angle 45mm resists 88mm APCBC equivalent to 130mm vertical armor. However, Soviet armor of that thickness was very hard, typically around 450 BHN, and therefore quite brittle. Brittle armor plate is particularly vulnerable to projectiles that are larger in diameter than the plate's thickness. So at that BHN and T/D ratio the effective armor resistance is lowered by 26%, leaving the unfortunate T-34 with only 96mm of effective armor resistance. The 88L56 cannon on the Tiger I will penetrate that easily at 2000 meters (penetration = 116mm). In fact, it will penetrate it out to at least 3000 meters (penetration = 97mm)

Holy ****. Ninja'd 5 times in 5 minutes.

1) Target Armor Arc command. It works the same as Target Arc except the unit will only open fire on vehicles inside the arc. 2) Spall is small bits of armor -- sometimes microscopic in size -- that flake off armor plate when it is struck. It can injure vehicle crew members but will otherwise not harm the vehicle. 3) Depends on the mortar. 60mm or smaller will not do much. 81mm can do some damage if it hits the top of the hull, but will usually not destroy the tank. 120mm could probably destroy some tanks, depending on how thick their top armor is.

T-34 lower hull is 45mm thick at 60° from vertical. I haven't done any math on it, but most Soviet armor is high-hardness RHA, which loses resistance at an accelerated rate against overmatching (via thickness/diameter ratio) penetrators, which would certainly include 88mm APCBC.

Note that in that thread there were some tests done on infantry and machine gun ROF under Target and Target Light, resulting a difference of 0 to 20%

Seems fitting for the East front. BTW, aren't you supposed to be banned or something?

I haven't done much research on this, but that looks to me like a highly improbable ratio. Karl-Heinz Frieser puts German total losses for Bagration at 400,000. Glantz puts total Soviet casualties for that operation at 770,000. That is 1.9 to 1. Was the ratio nearly twice as favorable to the Soviets during the rest of 1944?

I have never compared ammo usage between Target and Target Light for infantry, but I have on tanks and the difference is small, in the neighborhood of 10%

I have read that they had been largely removed from front-line units by 1944. But perhaps they were still part of the official TO&E and that's why they are prevalent in the game.

That sounds more like the "aiming/firing" loop they get into when the LOS is marginal. Could be related, tho.

After trying several variations on that theme with different distances, moving, not moving, I got one instance of the Stug changing it's mind on which to fire at twice, but it did then open fire. In all other test runs the Stug picked one tank to shoot first and stuck with it. Just having 2 targets at once doesn't appear to be sufficient to put it into an extended indecision loop so there must have been something particular to that situation.

It sounds like the Stug spotted 2 tanks moving laterally across its field of view, right? How far away were the tanks, and how close were the tanks to each other?

To the best of my knowledge it is not a known bug. But it could become one if you have a save game file.

Yes, they do, within a 50 meter radius.

Hey BFC, is Russian primitive instinct modeled in CMRT?

Meant to say FHA...

No, it's probably closer to 1.4-1.5 to 1. Take a standard Grenadier company and delete the 'schrecks so the only heavy weapons teams are the 2 MG42 HMGs. You have 113 men costing 619 points, or 5.5 per man. A Soviet rifle '43 company with the AT rifles and mortar platoon deleted -- leaving the one organic Maxim HMG -- is 137 men costing 542 points, or 4 per man. Including all the heavy weapons will drive the per man cost of German troops higher because panzerschrecks are 4 times the price of AT rifles.

Doubtful. For the the ZiS-S-53 cannon CMBB lists the following penetration at range 0 against vertical armor: AP: 133 APBC: 120 Actual penetration is (per WW2 Ballistics) vs FHA AP: 135 APBC: 128 vs RHA AP: 146 APBC: 143 Neither matches up exactly, but the RHA numbers are closer. Nevertheless, after finally getting time to run some numbers it appears there may be something slightly off. First, I will assume CMRT uses 83mm for the Panther glacis plate thickness. Note that this is an assumption only, based on that being the CMAK thickness. It could be modeled at the official 80mm thickness as it was in CMBB. In fact, the latter would more closely match the reported test results. At 83mm thickness the glacis plate resists 85mm APBC equivalent to 169.4mm vertical thickness for good quality armor. Armor flaw modifiers for low, medium and high severity flaws are .96, .92 and .84 (for T/D=.9765, 55° angle impact). Application of modifiers gives us end values of 162.6mm, 155.8mm and 142.3mm At 600 meters Soviets 85mm APBC penetration is 119mm vs RHA. This has no chance at all against low and medium flawed armor, and only a very small chance against highly flawed armor --.84 (119/142.3) penetration/resistance ratio = 0% chance using US penetration data, 1% using Soviet penetration data. In order to get a 10% penetration chance per Soviet data the average armor flaw modifier would have to be 77%, which is prohibitively severe. In CMBB it was 85% across the board and even that was probably too harsh. If we reduce the glacis place thickness to 80mm then the effective resistance of highly flawed armor goes down to 134.4mm, giving us a P/R ratio of .89 which translates to a penetration chance of 6% under Soviet criteria. That would be within the margin of error for a test showing 10% with a sample size of 131. At some point this weekend I will hopefully get time to run a proper test with a proper sample size. If the actual penetration percentage is around 5-6% that would be consistent with a Panther glacis plate modeled as in CMBB -- 80mm thick and 85% quality across the board (the 0 penetrations reported in the CMBB test could be explained by the lower ZiS-S-53 cannon penetration in that game). However, the manual states that the Panther G has only "occasional manufacturing flaws" in CMx2, which would be more historically accurate. 83mm thickness is also closer to reality.

There are a lot of maps in excess of 2 km per side in CMRT, and also CMBN. I am almost certain that tank gunnery accuracy in CMx2 is NOT practice range accuracy. I don't think it's even close. For the 88 mm KwK 43 L/71 on the King Tiger, the expected first shot practice range accuracy at 1000 meters was officially 100%, combat accuracy 85%. Line up some T-34s 1000m away from some KTs and test the first shot accuracy in CMRT, then come back and tell us that it's "Testrange Hit%"

I am about 99% sure that CM does not model edge effects. As for CMBB penetration stats, when I checked them a few days ago for the T-35/85, the numbers appeared to have been for strikes on face hardened armor. The Panther G glacis plate is rolled homogenous, against which the T-34's penetration will be higher.

IIRC that is not stated in the manual. I don't have access to it ATM to make sure, so I could be remembering incorrectly. EDIT: Ok, it does say something to that effect.

The late Tiger also has a monocular gunner's sight instead of the binocular sight on the mid. Whether or not this makes any difference in-game is anyone's guess (I'm guessing not). IIRC the late also has thicker hull roof armor, although I may be confusing it with the Panther.