Vanir Ausf B

Although the exact chance of a ricochet is not known, WW II Ballistics does give an indication of the percentage of hits that would impact at certain angles.

Casualties absolutely do count towards victory points in QBs. The exact breakdown of casualty points vs. terrain objective points in QBs is: Terrain/Casualties ME: 400/600 pts Probe: 500/500 pts Attack: 650/350 pts Assault: 750/250 pts Thanks to Berto for figuring out this last part.

The geometry of my test was that the tanks were at the same elevation facing directly towards each other. As for exactly what area of the mantlet would produce downward ricochets, that is unknown. Even Rexford didn't know. Charles seemed to assume around 10% in the CMx1 games (the shot trap was modeled in CMx1 as a higher probability of weak point penetrations though the front turret).

This has been an ongoing issue for over 2 years now. With the 2.11 patch out I decided to test the Panther armor once again. This test was done at 800 meters. UK Sherman Vs firing on Panther A mids. Hits on Panther mantlet: 636 Ricochets: 0 There was one penetration of the top hull armor but there was no ricochet hit text, nor did the hit text indicate that it had struck any other plate first. It would be nice to see this working.

I doubt it would work though a tall wall since that would block LOF/LOS, unlike bocage.

That was "the way" I was thinking. I probably should have mentioned that My first reaction was "so the QBs are based on player expectation rather than historical reality? BS!" I even started to write out a reply along those lines when I realized the practical force-picking implications.

Yep. I agree For the most part the ballistics modeling in CMx2 is superb. I think that's what makes people take notice of the occasional oddity.

Yes, people do know that different vehicle types have always been assigned differing quality armor in the game. The real questions are: do "people" know that there is no in-game indication of this? Do "people" know that for other units with armor quality reductions such as the Sherman, Panther and Tiger there is specific mention made of it in the manual(s)? Do "people" know that there is no such mention of armor quality issues in any of the manual entries for Jpz IV? I get the feeling some "people" know very little about which they speak.

Interesting. Makes sense, in a way.

There seems to be a little confusion about that thread. No one ever claimed the armor quality rating for the Jpz IV was wrong. Because initially no one knew it was rated at something less that 100%. So of course the assumption was that it must be a thickness or angle mistake, which test results strongly indicated, had the armor actually been rated at 100%. Which would have been a bug. For all I know, the armor quality of the Jpz IV may be correct since I have no idea where Charles got his information from an I have no information that explicitly says it's wrong.

Yes. And that same data was displayed in the unit stats screen. In fact, I was going to look up what it was it CMBB except the computer I have it installed on died recently. The issue I'm referring to isn't the armor quality being wrong -- I actually have no opinion on that either way -- but the fact we couldn't tell that the results we were seeing were caused by poor armor quality.

Of course. That makes perfect sense given that the person who makes those decisions does not post on the forum. But certainly if he did there would have been a rousing flame war on subject, give that not one person ever claimed that the armor quality rating of the Jpz IV was too low. I probably should not let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good rant, but as a Plate Templar I feel obligated to point out that the continued discussion in that thread has had almost nothing to do with the Jpz IV, as anyone who had bother to read it would know.

The Marder IIM is still missing from the Luftwaffe Airborne Infantry in the QB editor.

I don't think there is.

Looking back, I should not have wrote that British rounds weighed less. That is too speculative since I do not have the exact weights. Part of the confusion is that I have seen conflicting claims over whether the British used M72 or M61, or both. It seems to me M61 would be more likely since that was what the US was using exclusively during the CMBN time period, but I have not seen a definitive source on this. The bottom line is that all else being equal, removal of the HE charge should improve penetration by 10-13%. The OP stated that he tested both US and British Shermans and saw more penetrations from the British tanks against the highly sloped Jpz IV armor, which suggests that the game assumes the British to be using M61 with a higher penetration than the US version.

I was just thinking that is one of the rare pictures of a tank that is actually as "weathered" as most vehicle mods on the Repository

One other possible issue. Ordering a unit to deploy cancels any Hide order. I don't recall this being the case previously, but perhaps my memory is faulty.

I think this is a recent bug. I'm not sure if it was introduced in 2.10 or 2.11, but I don't think it was this way in 2.01.

Heavy weapons teams with a directional covered arc command will not deploy. By directional I mean not 360°. Units with a 360° arc will deploy as will units with a face command. And deployed units with a directional covered arc will pack-up. But they will not deploy. This was tested with MG42 HMG, M1919a4 MMG, M1917 HMG and 60mm mortar teams.

This is where I do miss the units stats from CMx1. There is nothing in the game to indicate this so we are left to guess at unexpected results. But it's good to hear that it is being looked at.

Yes WWII Ballistics is the source for the "astonishing" assertion. However, I miss-remembered one of the numbers. It was 13% rather than 14%, and that was the difference between rounds in which all else was equal. However, in the case of US and British 75mm all else is not equal. The British rounds weigh less but have the same velocity and therefore less energy. When that is accounted for the actual penetration difference is about 8% higher (114mm x .86 = 98mm). page 58: The approximate impact of of caps and HE bursters on homogeneous armor penetration may be estimated by comparing the penetration of different rounds. The 37mm solid AP shot penetrates about 94mm at 2900 fps and 0° impact, while solid shot 37mm M51 APCBC penetrates 81mm at the same velocity and projectile weight. The comparison of 37mm rounds suggests that placing caps on the M51 round reduced penetration by 14%. 75mm M61 APCBC-HE penetrates 90mm at 0m and 0°, while 75mm M72 solid shot AP penetrates 114mm, both striking at 2030 fps. If the 75mm AP shot penetration is increased to account for the weight difference the solid shot would penetrate 120mm. To equal 75mm M61 penetration the solid shot penetration will be reduced due to cap addition and the cavity for the HE burster. If the 75mm M72 AP shot had armor piercing and ballistic caps the 120mm penetration would be reduced by 14% if it followed the 37mm example, resulting in 103mm penetration. To equal 75mm M61 penetration an additional 13% reduction in 75mm AP penetration is required (103mm to 90mm), which would be associated with weakening of the projectile structure due to the HE burster cavity. When HE cavities weaken the steel structure the armor piercing projectile absorbs energy that would otherwise be used to defeat armor plate, so penetration decreases. The later section on the DeMarre equation states that methodology assumes a 10% decrease. Page 78: HE bursters and armor piercing caps reduced penetration by about 10% compared to uncapped solid shot. I assume they meant 10% each, given the earlier statements. The authors do not attempt to reconcile the different numbers and it is clear that there is a fair amount of uncertainty.

I am aware that the British 75mm ammo without the burster charge has higher penetration. But there is some uncertainty about how much higher. It's in the 10-14% range, but I don't know exactly what value the game uses. There is more certainty about the penetration of US 75mm ammo so that is what I used to test.

Just to confirm the OP's observations I just did a quick test. US Sherman 75s vs Jpz IV 70s at 300 meters. Out of 28 hits on the lower front hull 21 created spalling and the other 7 were partial penetrations. That suggests the armor value is modeled at close to the maximum penetration of US 75mm at that range, which is about 84mm. That would be roughly consistent with the Achtung Panzer website, per my above post. However... That makes 2 fairly authoritative sources saying the game has it wrong vs. one website saying the opposite. At the very least it may be worth asking Charles to double check his sources.

So are we supposed to go register on that forum just to answer that one post (which no one has responded to even on that forum)? I'm not a fan of BFC's DRM either, but if every negative post about Combat Mission anywhere on the internet warrants a new thread dedicated to it then we will need a new forum to contain them all. I don't like seeing more important threads get pushed off the first page by muck-stirring.