Timber

Good thing I only got the demo then, because it was a pretty important feature for me. Guess I'll pass until a new Combat Mission series with said info comes up then.

Was wondering why I can't find any armor penetration info in this game? Used to be able to see nice list in the old CM games. Did they remove it? If so, that's too bad

Hi guys, I am very excited to have learned about this new edition of the Combat Mission series, I was a great fan of Combat Mission 1, 2 & 3, so I was naturally very excited when I saw this one was about to launch. I have some questions however. One of the things I really loved about the other CM games was the angle of impact effect on armor penetration, and that the 30 deg penetration specs for each gun could be brought up by a simple click of button. Was a very nice addition, esp. for us history nuts, but also for newcomers as an education device. So anyway my question is this: Will CM:BN like the previous games feature the angle of impact system, with vehicle positioning and armor slope having an effect on penetration? And will players be able to see the stats of each gun as in previous titles? Cheers!

How is the game in terms of realistic armor penetration figures ? I'm asking as a screenshot shows the 75mm KwK40 L/48 only penetrating 48mm of armor at 2,000m. In reality it would pierce 64mm of 260 BHN armor angled at 30 degrees at that distance.. (According to Bird & Livingston) Haven't bought the game yet as I want to make sure it's as realistic as the Combat Mission series in this regard. Would be great with those excellent graphics and damage models

Hello Moon I was wondering do you have the penetration performance figures for the different guns in the game ? If so I'd really appreciate you posting them Many thanks in advance, Timber

Hmm.. in CMAK i destroyed 10 Shermans with one Tiger set at a fixed position ! I set the Tiger crew at "Crack", and the allied crew's were set to be a random selection. I did as in Discovery channel's program hide the Tiger behind some three's, guarding a particular spot. Soon the Tiger had massacre'd 7 of the Shermans without trouble !. The other Shermans were in the meantime trying to flank the Tiger, but only managed to fire two surprise AP rounds at it "And they both bounced off". So now the Tiger swings its whole chassis towards the flanking Shermans, so that it faces them head on. And then in one turn it took them out one by one. End result: One Tiger, Ten knocked out Shermans ! So I'd have to agree that it highly depends on the scenario !!. Regards.

The difference in penetration performance is there because, the M26 Pershing (45) used the newer T33 projectile, while the M36 Jackson (44) used either the old M77 or M82 projectile. What im wondering about is why the 9.0cm M3 gun has better penetration than the 7.5cm Kwk42. Because in U.S. firing-tests the kwk42 was found to have better penetration and ROF than the 9.0cm M3. Regards.

Thanks Kingfish !! Well now i see that they corrected alot of faults from CMBO to CMAK, such as the penetration figures for the Kwk42 and Kwk43/PAk43. Thanks alot Kingfish, i ow you one Regards.

Hehe.. Beer's on me Thanks for the pen data for the 9.0cm M3 guns. The 8.8cm Kwk43 is the gun on the Tiger Ausf.B (Tiger II) and also the Pak43 yes . The 7.5cm Kwk42 is the L/70 gun on the Panther. Thanks again m8. Looking forward to the other pen data, i really appriciate it !! All the best.

Thanks alot Kingfish !! Yes in CMAK im refering to the 9.0cm M2 AA gun. Btw the guns on the M36 and M26 are 9.0cm M3's. Btw if i could get the 60 degree pen for the 9.0cm guns then that'll be great. ! Now another question for you, what is the penetration for the 7.5cm Kwk42 and 8.8cm Kwk43 in CMBO ?. (this time at 0-30-60 degree) And again Thanks Kingfish, I really appriciate it ! (Im just very curius as i want to compare some of these penetrations with some others ) All the best.

If somebody could give me the penetration for the 90mm M3 gun at 30 degree's in CMBO, then that'll be great !. (Both APCBC, AP, and APCR will be apriciated) Im just curius as in CMAK it qoutes 87mm at 2000m at 30 degree angle. (I do not own CMBO) Any info wil be apriciated Regards.

Hmm.. Ok im abit confused now. So you guy's dont know if its ok to use it ?? I mean ive allready bought all the CM games available, but its so irretating to put the CD in the drive each and every time you want to play... But if its considderet illegal i certainly wont aquire the patch... Timber

Hello I just wanted to ask if its okay to use "No-CD patches" if you allready bought CMAK ???

Man im looking forward to results of that battle....

Well the CDV version i bought was a "best buy" package. And all the patches were allready there when i started the game, and there was no need for updating.

Whats the big difference ??? Does the Battlefront version of CMBB have something the CDV version doesnt ??? Timber

Yep the CDV version doesnt need the CD. You just install it and then your ready to go, no need for the CD anymore, exept if you need to reinstall.

Yeah i know, i wasnt looking for stats actually, i was just trying to get to Rexford to tell him that if he based some of his knowledge on Lorrin's book, then he would be very wrong sometimes, as it is allmost all based on Russian tests, wich are seriusly overrated. I didnt know he was one of the author's though.. Anyway the book seems to be running from the facts, as German tests are not used, and im pretty sure U.S. tests at Aberdeen arent used in the equation either because the 75mm Kwk42 actually prooved itself superior to the 90mm M3 during tests at Aberdeen in 45, but in Lorrin's book that isnt the case. Kinda disturbing isnt it All the best, Timber

So very true.. But the 100 Bs3 had a better "Clean" penetration performance because of its smaller size and better ballistics over long range, but yes the 122mm shell was better for cracking and spalling armor, wich i think the russians sometimes considders a penetration. As for the Germans they needed 66.6% of their projectiles to completely and cleanly penetrate the test-plate, whereas the russians needed 66.6-75% of their projectiles to partly penetrate at least 75-80% of the test-plate. This is many times forgotten. Timber [ November 08, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Timber ]

Well the the energy from a 100mm shell is distributed over smaller area than on a 122mm shell, and thats why the 100mm shell has better penetration caracteristics. In fact "Allthough not according to Battlefield.ru" the 100mm Bs3 had better penetration than the 122mm D25, and the penetration tales for the 122mm gun on that site are absolutely ridiculous... Please excuse my bad english as im not english. Timber

Well that is indeed just a thought because the kenetic energy of shell also needs to correspond to dimension of the shell to be effective, wich the Russian 122mm shell for the 122mm D25 gun doesnt. Timber

But im talking about CMBB, where the penetration for the German guns is notably to low. Timber

These are tests with the 88mm Kwk43 done by the germans in 43 and 44 against good quality armorplates, i believe the tests were carried out in Kassel Germany. Tests with Pzgr.39-1 (APCBC)/ Pzgr.39/43(APCBC) against a 30 degree sloped testplate: 500m: 183mm / 185mm 1000m: 167mm / 165mm 1500m: 153mm / 148mm 2000m: 139mm / 132mm Tests carried out in Britain with the Kwk43, turned out even higher because of different test-criteria. Primary sources: "German Artillery of WWII" by Ian V. Hogg, and "TigerII Heavy tank 1942-1945" by Tom Jentz. [ November 02, 2004, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Timber ]

Well the sources are from Battlefield.ru and Bird and Livingston, plus alot from Tom Jentz wich qoutes the official german test reports, and that the Kwk43 penetrated 132mm against a 30* sloped plate, and that is only an average given after the tests meaning actual penetration might have been alot higher. As for Russian tests, well they allmost always turn out surealistic and impossible, wich is because the Russians didnt do alot of inspection on the test-plate or tank they were shooting at, wich would explain the high results with the 88mm Kwk43 and 122mm D-25 gun at Kubinka. [ November 02, 2004, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Timber ]

Well first of its impossible that the 122mm D-25 would penetrate the frontal glacis armor on the Panther at 2500m and 1500m as suggested in Battlefield.ru, so thats one of the reasons i dont believe that site. Secondly the site also says the 88mm Kwk43 would penetrate allmost 280mm of FH vertical armor at 400m with the Pzgr.39(APCBC), while theoreticly according to Bird and livingstones book it shouldnt be able to do that. And in CMBB the Kwk43 only penetrates 121mm of 30* sloped armor at 2000m, when in reallity it would penetrate 132mm of 30* sloped armor at 2000m on an average. Cheers; Timber [ October 31, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Timber ]