Erwin.Rommel
-
Posts
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Erwin.Rommel
-
-
is it any different with one of the FH armour PIV's? As the Ausf J is a RHA which was much less effective at inducing shatter of comparatively brittle Soviet AP rounds.
I may be misremembering but I'm sure that you were better off taking PIV's with FH armour than the ausf J in CMBB. On the Western front games it was reversed as the RHA was a bit more effective, I seem to remember when CMBN first came out that ausf J were more survivable vs Sherman 75s than the earlier FH PIV's like the H's and G's.
the T34/76 in 1944 used the blunt nose BR350B APBC, according to lorrin's book, the russian APBC have better porformance with FHA than RHA(no better than the APCBC used by german and other western countries),
-
The penetration on the glacis was achieved by the 85mm APBC which is not around the bow maching gun or the edge of the armor. How to explain?
-
Just did some further tests about the T-34/76 and MarkIV(J), range is about 600m. all hits on the hull front achieved completely penetration. see the picture below
-
Actually, A-19 penetrated Tiger-2 turret armor from 1000-1500 metres. D-25 had the same ballistics.
The tests of Kubinka are the well-knowned un-reliable tests of the WWII gun and armor, because the Russians used all kinds of guns repeatly shoot the same place(especially the upper hull front and turret front) of Kingtiger 102 and achieved the penetration.
And according to the lorrin's book, the russian 122mm can not penetrate the turret front of Kingtiger even at point blant as showed in the CMBB
-
Can you say, if penetrations of the Panther's upper front hull plate by T34/85 was done by regular AP ammo or maybe with APCRs ? At what range ? What was the T-34 model and what Panther model ?
I can justify penetrations of KTs front turret and lower front hull with 122mm AP shells, it could happen from many reasons (random variations in penetration power, poor armor quality, flaws in plates, weakpoint hit, a joint or the edge of the plate hit).
Especially heavy spalling and partial penetrations could happen (large pieces of armor breaking off inside, after hits with such heavy projectiles).
I guess it was highly vriable and random - some 100/122mm AP hits (especially on front upper hull plate or at favorite angle) would do nothing, just bounce with no effect on crew or tank, and only leaving dents in armor.
Some other 122mm hits - hits against some near vertical and flawed parts of armor - could result in spalling or armor cracks that could disable the vehicle or crew without penetration, or even penetrate.
After all, Russians at Ogledów managed to kill some KTs frontally with IS-2s, and even burn few of them. I don't know if they penetrated them, or knocked out without penetrating (cracks, spalling, engine malfunction or fire because of shock) - anyway they knocked them out, so it should be possible in game, too.
Against a weapon with such great kinetic energy and massive shell momentum like 122mm AP no tank is completly invunerable, even if it's armor can't be penetrated in theory.
But Panthers upper front hull plate should be IMO quite immune against 85mm APs - excluding weakpoint hits (machinegun, drivers slit) and plate joint/edge hits.
About the Ogledów, according to the <tigers in combat I>
12 August 1944: The attack is stopped in face of strong resistance. Only 8 tanks are
operational. A hidden T-34/85 of the 53rd Guards Tank Brigade ambushes them near
Obledo and knocks out several Tiger lIs (3 tanks are totally destroyed). The ammunition
stowed inside the turrets causes fatal explosions, killing many crewmembers. Following
this, no 8.8-centimeter main-gun ammunition is stowed in the turret any more, reducing
the stowage to 68 rounds.
The 1./schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501 is entrained at Ohrdruf, heading for the battal-
Ion.
13 August 1944: Heavy fighting and further losses. 1 tank-Tiger 002-is captured
intact by the enemy.
Mid-August 1944: Minor skirmishes. The tanks receive new final drives.
22 August 1944: Preposterous employment near Radom (Prusy and Bidziny), right
into infantry strongpoints. Soon afterwards, an engagement in terrain unfavorable for
tanks, due to which several Tigers are damaged. The battalion commander is relieved and
is reported to have links to the 20 July 1944 conspiracy. Major Saemisch becomes the new
commander.
1 September 1944: 26 Tigers operational. Assigned to the XXXVIII. Panzer-Korps.
September 1944: The 3./schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501 arrives in the KielceOstrowieze-
Busco area. During an unsuitable mission-an attack along a forest trail-the
battalion suffers losses.
Total tanks: 53.
No records of skirmishs between Kingtiger and IS-2 as well as the picture evidences that kingtier been destroy by IS-2 frontally.
-
There's more going on under the hood of this game than we could possibly guess. Recently discussing with Charles the armor quality of Hetzer (mediocre) he happened to mention that the Brinell hardness numbers were already plugged in. REALLY? Brinell hardness numbers are part of the game calculations? Wow... just wow. :eek:
the BHN has already been calculated in the armor system in CMAK and CMBB.
-
I didn't go through the calculations by hand, but a quick run through a ballistics calculator suggests this is about right for 122mm APBC. This assumes 205mm penetration at the muzzle which, admittedly, is probably debatable but it's not a crazy figure.
Hmm, point blank penetration for this time period is about 87mm. Earlier war Soviet ammunition was lower quality. But regardless of that, some 76mm-equipped units, such as the T-34/76 M1942 Late, carry a small number of APCR rounds that penetrate 130mm at 100 meters and 92mm at 500 meters.
See above comments.
As with the upper hull, we need to know which Panther you are talking about. The lower hull on the ausf G is thinner than on the D and A, and also is RHA rather than FHA.
About the penetration on the upper hull front of panther, I used the pantherG. the shells are regular AP rounds, all penetration achieved at 600m.
about the penetration on the lower hull front I used all version of panther. the fire range is 200-700m.
-
Just play the CMRT, find some increditable phenomenon that never seen in the CMBB CMBN or CMFI and not comform to the tests about ammo and armor of wwII.
1# 122 AP easily penetrated the lower hull front(100mm/50) and the partial penetrated the turret front of Kingtiger(180-185mm/10) beyond 600m , this never happen in the CMBB and never happen in the WWII.
2# russian 76mm AP too often partial penetrate the upper hull front(80mm) of IV tank,this also never happen in the CMBB, the point blank penetration depth with RHA of russian 76mm AP is about 81mm, then how could this happen, amore qulity low?
3# russian 85mm AP too powerful against the upper hull front of panther, just a few tests, I see 4 penetration, 2 around the bow machine gun, 1 near the edge of plate(these 3 penetratio are logical), but one in the center of the plate(non-sense for this penetration, I take the screenshot for it).
4# russian 85mm AP easily penetrate the lower hull front beyond 600m, but in the same tests in CMBN an CMFI, US 76mm could not penetrate the same place, US 76mm AP is more powerful than 85mm AP according to most of the resources.
So BFC, how to explain this? how much you get from Vladimir Putin(this is just a joke)?
-
I don't know but I think he's talking about how a shell hitting at a shallower angle will make a more stretched oval shape than if it hit at 90o.
Not that hard to implement if the impact angle in 3 dimensions is readily available to the code that draws the decal to stretch the decal.
you got my point.
-
After I watch the preview video of the CMRT, the effect of the decal is brillant except the shape of the decal on the sloped armor, many historical pictures of the WWII shows that the shape of decals on the sloper armor were irregular, however in the video the decals on the sloped armour is circular as on the vertical armor. Can we get a improvement of this feature in the released version?
the picture attched is a decal on the upper hull front of T34/85
-
thanks for your good mod, but it seems there is a little bug with the no zeltbahn mod, when I installed this,most of the zeltbahn at shoulder height disappeared as intended, but a few soldiers still got zeltbahn with dark color at the shoulder height and the model flickers or disappear and re-appeared if you see from some certain distance and angel. don't know why, it seems something wrong with the alpha channel. You can check this in the mission platoon patrol
-
1.the Panzer VI J(late) still has the shadow of the Schurzen when the Schurzen was randomly absent.
2.the Sdkfz 250/1 have the model of MG34 but in fact equiped with MG42. the same problem also exist with the Sdkfz 251/1©, the model of the machine gun is MG42, but it should equiped with MG34 which showed in the UI.
-
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.
If you used the British 75mm or 75mm used by early version of US Sherman which don't have blast charge, you will see more penetration
-
I played some battle with JPIV against Sherman, I always have some bad experience that my JPIV always easily been knock out by 75mm though the penetration or partial penetration in the lower front hull. But I have never seen any penetration in the lower front hull of Panther G which should have the same protection with JPIV(50mm/50). So I did a simple test with these two vehicle against 75mm fire from 300m. For the panther, among 30 hits on the lower front hull, 0 penetration or partial penetration was achieved just some occasional armor spalling with no harm. But for the JPIV, things are completely different, among 30 hits on the lower front,10 penetration or partial penetration in the lower front and the rest non-penetrated hit always cause armor spalling and the JPIV always end with been knock out in the test. The game manual don't mention any armor flaw in the lower font hull of JPIV and the 75mm can not penetrate the thickness of 50mm/50 theoretically. So how to explain the vast difference?
Ps: I used the British Sherman that fire AP without explosion charge in the test, the AP with explosion charge used by US seems achieved less penetration in the same situation in the further tests, Is that means the British used m72 AP which more effective against rolled homogeneous armor and US used the m61 APCBC which more effective against face harden armor in the game? but this still can not explain the difference between the pantherG and JPIV.
-
Another similar bug both in the CMFI and CMBN is the model of 251/1© get a MG42 but in fact the vehicle used the MG34
-
The game model of the 250/1 has a MG34, but in fact, the vehicle used the MG42(also in the UI).
-
Sorry the bug is appear in the SDKFZ 7/2 not 7/1
-
Double posting. Please delete this post!
-
just a little visual bug, the second road wheel(the first outer road wheel) on the right side of the vehicle is not rotating when the vehicle is on the move. possibe fix in the up-coming update?
-
Specific answers to specific questions:
Steve
Hey steve, I recall in the CMSF, infantry team go though open ground in formation line, however in the CMBN and CMFI, they go through all place with formation column. I don't call for the manually changed formation system to be added to the game. But can we get a new feature in the future update that the infantry squad move in line in some open ground then the TacAI can automatically change to column in the narrow places such as the urban area?
-
See this picture
-
Just a question, in the CMAK CMBB,the FLAK36 37mm is L57, but in the CMFI, the FLAK36 become the L98, the wiki show it should be the L57, so which is wrong?
-
Yup. A Kar98k packs quite a kick. Firing a FG42 from a bipod would be preferable, but it's doubtful it was as comfortable as a MG34/42 (which is actually much better than the Kar99k!).
It was way ahead of its time. Though as a rifle, the MP43/MP44/StG44 was a far more practical full auto rifle solution. Which is why most rifles today are more like the latter than the former. The G3 was one of the last significant holdouts of the full power cartridge. Mine is semi-auto only and yeah... that's got quite a kick to it.
Steve
In the game, the FG42 use the same sound with the K98K, steve, could you improved this in the next patch?
-
Well, ASL Veteran did put my thoughts down, quite succinctly. I expect my results will correspond with his narrative, as they should (and as they have in the past).
I'll test, but just to verify that it is acting the way it should...as ASL Veteran has written it up.
Ken
1.about the type of bunker
I am absolutely sure that I have correctly chosen the right type of bunker(the MG42 bunker,not the shelt bunker).
2. about the semi-deployed
I just re-check the test, the reason that the UI of the MG team showed the semi-deployed is that I also deployed a FO team in the bunker. when I removed this FO, the UI doesn't show the semi-deployed anymore, but this change exert no effect on the results.
3. I re-test the map many time. the results are same as I depicted in this topic.
The german tank be weaken or the Russian ammo be strengthen in the CMRT?
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
I don's expect the same results all the time, I just don's expect the impossible results that indicated by various resouce of WWII armor and ammo(especially the Lorin's book, Lorin play a very important role in the establishment of the armor system used by CM) happen in the game.