Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

Panzer76

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,100

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Panzer76

    Even more ranting in praise of the Cold War for CMX2 :)

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    I think some people here are completly missing the pictures when it comes to modern combat. It's not about modelling strat bombing or nuclear weapons, sheesh. Here is the problem:

    How will the CM2 engine model the increasing reliance on air support? Clearly you can't have the same model as in CM1 when suddenly you get close support from Cobra helicopters?

    With modern communication equipment, both arty and air support can be on call, and within the time frame of CM type battles. I am curious of how this will be resolved.

    0

    Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Bigduke6:

    I guess if the game took into account heat-treated 76.2AP rounds, aiming for sprockets, the fielding of the BR-345A/B then it would probably produce results just like the Red commanders said. It doesn't, but there it is.

    Scenario makers simulate the heat treated rounds by adding a few (1-4) T rounds to the T34. Too bad CMBB does not simulate these special rounds, oh well.
    0

    Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Ok, did some testing in CMBB. 6 Elite T34m43 firing at Reg Tiger side, from 100m and 250m.

    Only used regular ammo, no T rounds.

    I testet for Oct42, Oct43 and Oct 44 to see the envolvement in ammo types, if any.

    LH = Lower Hull

    UH = Upper Hull

    T = Turret

    B = Bounced

    P = Partial Penetration

    F = Full Penetration

    Oct42 - 250 m

    Shots: 24

    LH: 2 hits. B: 0% P: 0% F: 100%

    UH: 18 hits. B: 83% P: 11% F: 6%

    T: 6 hits. B: 50% P: 50% F: 0%

    Oct 42 - 100m

    Shots: 15

    LH: 2 hits. B: 0% P:0% F: 100%

    UH: 7 hits. B: 43% P: 57% F: 0%

    T: 6 hits. B: 50% P: 50% F: 0%

    Oct 43 - 250m

    Shots: 21

    LH: 2 hits. B: 0% P:0% F: 100%

    UH: 12 hits. B: 25% P: 58% F: 7%

    T: 7 hits. B: 0% P: 100% F: 0%

    Oct 43 - 100m

    Shots: 26

    LH: 6 hits. B: 0% P:0% F: 100%

    UH: 14 hits. B: 21% P: 64% F: 15%

    T: 6 hits. B: 17% P: 50% F: 33%

    Oct 44 - 250m

    Shots: 21

    LH: 3 hits. B: 0% P:0% F: 100%

    UH: 12 hits. B: 25% P: 75% F: 0%

    T: 6 hits. B: 17% P: 83% F: 0%

    Oct 44 - 100m

    Shots: 15

    LH: 0 hits. B: 0% P: 0% F: 0%

    UH: 8 hits. B: 12% P: 38% F: 50%

    T: 7 hits. B: 0% P: 57% F: 43%

    So, during all years, you will fully penetrate th elower hull, as you would expect.

    There is a huge difference between 42 and 43/44 in terms of performance.

    Discussing only T and UH hit performace:

    In 42 from 250 m only 25% do not bounce off, and most of them only get partial penetrations.

    In 43 the same number is 86% and for 44 it's 78%. Due to the limited test I think we can say that from 43 and onwards, around 80-85% of the rounds will get mostly partial penetrations, with a few full ones.

    When it comes to performance at the 100 m range, they are as follows:

    In 42 you will get approx 50% partial penetrations and no full penetrations. In 43 the same number is 80% including a chance to get full penetrations. For 44 it's a whooping 93% chance and half of them will be full penetrations.

    In conclusion, in 42 you would want to be point blank if you want to take on the Tiger, and the only way you get full penetrations is if you get a lower hull hit, which is difficult.

    In 43 you can engange from 300m or less, and have a good chance for a partial penetration. If you close to 100m, you will not increase your chance to get penetrations much.

    In 44 you can as in 43 engage from 300m or less. If you get really close, you have a good chance on getting full penetrations.

    Incidentally, this pretty much agrees with the performancedata, already accepted by you BigDuke ;) , for the BR-350A and BR-350B rounds already presented. The conclusion must then be that there is no significant failure in the simulation of the 76.2mm gun.

    The contested performance against the Stug would be on the basis that the StugIII's front is overmodeled, which it patently is (the 50mm front of the gun cradle is not modeled, etc).

    Other abnormalities can be explained by the lack of the heat treated BR-350A/B round in CMBB as well as the "Tiger round".

    I hearby give the CMBB simulation of the 76.2mm performance, a clean bill of health! [Fanfare]

    Remember, this is from approx 90 degrees, and the results will vary significantly in combat situations with less than optimal angle of attack.

    Also, I would like to add that even partial penetrations stood a good chance of KOing the Tiger, multiple times I saw the first part pen KO.

    But, as always, do not attack with only 1 tank at the time, use a platoon or more if possible.

    The life expectancy in this test for the Tiger in 42 was around 20 seconds, in 43-44 more like 10 seconds.

    [ April 28, 2005, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

    0

    Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Bigduke6:

    3. Recollections of Genrikh Fenras, ZiS-3 gunner –knocks out Ferdinand tank destroyer with single point-blank flank shot.

    http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/fernas/fernas_r.html

    Since you seem knowledgable about these things, you do knw that it was not uncommon for Soviet tankers to call any SP/TD for a Ferdinand? Not saying this is the case here, just mentioning it.

    Remember, the Soviet tanker had in limited quantity heat treated BR-350A/B rounds, which had better performance than the reg rounds. And they had a round specifically designed to KO the Tiger. None of these rounds are modeled in CMBB.

    0

    reality check...

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Another Uber Finn, welcome!

    As JonS says, CM does not simulate poor higher command leadership. On the tactical level, you can always give the russians conscript experience, and your Finnish uber troops (hihi) Veteran or crack.

    You know, man for man, the humans are pretty much the same. What makes them different is training and motivation. This can be simulated by experience.

    0

    Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Ok, so after trying to find as much info as possible on the penetration abilities of the F-34 gun, here is a summary:

    Best/worst performance for the different rounds:

    BR-350A

    100m 500m

    90 degrees 90/80 78/60

    60 degrees 89/60 70/59

    BR-350B

    100m 500m

    90 degrees 94/86 84/75

    60 degrees 89/74 76/62

    BR-350P(Tungsten)

    100m 500m

    90 degrees 102/102 92/90

    60 degrees 92/90 77/77

    Notes:

    *BR-350A was prone to shatter, production stopped in 43.

    *Ammunition quality was sub standard up to 43-44

    *BR-350B production started in 42.

    *BR-350P production started in Oct-43.

    *There is mentioned a BR-354B round that replaced the BR-350B round in 44, but I have found no data about this round.

    This data indicates that you should not be able to penetrate a Tigers 80mm side from 500m without T rounds. With BR-350A rounds you have to be alost point blank. With 350B rounds you would need to close to around 250m.

    0

    Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Zwollo2003:

    BTW on the same site there is more penetration data at:

    http://krieg.wallst.ru/frames-p/panzerrung.html

    Zwolo

    Interesting link there, this site is shows the BR-350B having better perfomance than the BR-350A.

    Could someone please translate this:

    76,2-мм Ф-34,

    Т-34 обр. 1941 г.

    76,2-мм ЗИС-5,

    КВ-1

    76,2-мм Ф-34,

    Т-34 обр. 1942 г.

    ЗИС-5,

    КВ-1С

    I can guess what it says, but I want to be sure smile.gif

    [ April 26, 2005, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

    0

    Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Bigduke6:

    Clearly the round you are talking about came out in 1944 at least, and maybe even later. It is the follow-on to the BR-350 series.

    Thank Bigduke and Zwollo.

    I found that reference on the web site link you gave Bigduke. http://krieg.wallst.ru/frames-p/saurung.html

    It seems that they give this round a penetration ability at 500 m and 90 degrees, 100mm. However, it seems they mean it was used in 1942, which makes it all the more confusing.

    I take this to be the Zis-3 gun? :

    76,2-мм ЗИС-3,

    СУ-76, СУ-76И

    0

    Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Can someone that can read russian translate this:

    УБР-354М

    Is this the same round as the BR-354B?

    Russian battlefield states that the F-34 gun used the following types of AP ammo:

    UBR-354A

    UBR-354B

    UBR-354SP

    But then gives the pentration values for the T-34 gun (F-34) with the following ammo:

    BR-350A

    BR-350B

    BR-350P

    Is there a difference between these rounds, or are they the same?

    [ April 26, 2005, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ]

    0

    Russian weapons undermodelled re: Tigers?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Thanks for the link Rune. The site is interesting and provides some more data on the subject.

    "the BR-350A was issued from before 1941 and ceased production in 1943;

    the BR-350B, pictured below, started production in 1942 and eventually replaced the BR-350A; and

    the BR-354B projectile replaced the BR-350B projectile in 1944."

    Apparently, russians had problems with ammo quality until 1944.

    "In addition, Soviet quality control was generally poor and ammunition was substandard up until about 1944, which would degrade penetration in unpredictable ways. I would expect that this means that some ammunition would perform better than predicted and some worse, or even considerably worse."

    It further says that there are no reliable source for penetration data for the BR-350B and the data that exist show that it would have lower penetration and less HE filler than the BR-350A.

    BUT:

    "It is likely that the reason for lack of BR-350B projectile data is that no actual tests were carried out and that the limited data presented is theoretical, leading to estimates of penetration performance which are unrealistically low."

    And that overall the performance of the BR-350B was better than the BR-350A.

    Also note that

    "Most Soviet data is based on mathematical prediction rather than on actual tests. While the predicted data is reasonably good for Soviet AP projectiles it can be quite inaccurate for APBC projectiles, particularly as these are more affected by obliquity and hardness so it is more difficult to derive a suitable mathematical predictive model."

    Which may go to some lenght to explain the confusion about real life performance and simulated performance.

    http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/soviet.html#Gun_Penetration_Data

    0
×
×
  • Create New...