Erwin.Rommel
-
Posts
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Erwin.Rommel
-
-
HMGs, including HMG34 and HMG42s, cannot fire their primary weapon from "shelter"-type bunkers because they are flagged as a heavy weapons team. It would be great if these MGs could be treated as a special case since they can function both as an HMG and an LMG, but that would apparently require entirely new code.
In general, however, if you want to depict a bunker armed with an MG, you should choose the "MG" rather than "shelter" option for the bunker. Although they don't have the same behavior as their equivalent HMGs in the open, you should still find them quite deadly (RoF is handled differently due to their vehicle-based coding, but they are more accurate).
Could you just check the test map before you typed a lot of words that all veteran CM played have known. I definetely know that I should choose a MG bunker rather than a shelt bunker and it is definitely that the accuracy of the MG bunker is much more lower than the MG in the open.
-
I just make a test map with 1 x HMG-42(veteran,high motivation) against a American platoon attack from 300 metres.When I placed it in building/trench/foxhole,the MG inflicted heavy losses to the enemy soldiers with high accuracy and high rate of fire as it should be with the 2.01 patch. But when I placed the MG in a bunker(concrete), the fire rate and accuracy is vastly decreased compared to the tests before and inflicted minor losses to the enemy(in my test just 2-3 casulty before the enemy knock out the bunker).There is definitely a bug with the caculation of the bunker(I just check the UI in the editor, it shows that when the MG been placed in the bunker, the UI showed the semi-deployed) I don't know if the bug lies with it, So BFC, could you check this?
I also upload my test mission in the attachments.
-
Another point about the AP rounds with bursting charge, sometimes, when hits the armor and bounce off, these rounds still cause damage to the sub-system. But the AP rounds without bursting charge never cause damage when hit without penetrate the armor.
Think about that,an 57mm AP(HE)rounds hits the upper hull front of a kingtiger and bounce off but still damage the optics and radio, but the 17prs rounds repeatly hit the same place never cause any damage to the tank...
I just try my test in the CMBN 1.11 by using my old laptap. All shermans in the 1.11 fire the AP with bursting charge and damage the sub-system.
-
Erwin.Rommel,
Let's start by looking into some of your claims. Since you don't define your terms very well, I'll try to help clarify your meaning.
U.S. 37mm
Antitank projectile has NO burster charge. Terminal effects are by kinetic energy only. There is a separate HE shell. See page 505 here of the Standard Ordnance Items Catalogue, Vol 3.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13810984/Standard-Ordnance-Items-Catalog-1944-Vol-3
The 75mm AP projectile DOES have a bursting charge.
Ibid. pp. 515-516.
The 76mm AP had one projectile without a bursting charge and another with it.
Ibid. (no pagination, but past the 75mm)
The 17 pr had AP with a bursting charge and APDS, which didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder
Am still running down the reference for the British 75mm AP projectiles, but my recollection is that the British removed the base detonation fuze and filled the fuze well with concrete. This was apparently because they did't trust fuzes to detonate AP shell properly and because they were seeking as much penetration as possible against very tough German tanks.
Armed with the above, and bearing in mind that HE was available for every tank/TD/AT gun listed, I invite you to revisit your tests.
Regards,
John Kettler
Thank you for your conclusion. I made some mistakes in my claims and caused some confusion.
Now I try to conclude my point again.
all these results based on my tests in the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI.
1. for US 37mm, it is my fault, the US 37mm used APCBC shot without bursting charge. In the game ,37mm do no harm to the sub-system, there is nothing wrong with it.
2. all CW rounds without bursting charge(6pdrs,17pdrs,75mm) do no harm to the sub-system.
3.the US 76mm 57mm can damage the sub-system. the issue lies on the 75mm rounds of US sherman. the M4A1(mid),M4A3,M4(mid)in CMBN2.0 and M4A1(early,mid) M4(early,mid) fire solid AP rounds(maybe the M72 AP shot) and do no harm to the sub-system. But M4A3 75(w)(early,mid) and the M4A1(late) fire the 75mm APCBC rounds with bursting charge(shounld be the M61 or M61A1) and do harm to the sub-system. This is very strange since all these types of shermans used by US army simultaneously in WW2. Different type of AP rounds were not be distributed according to the different type of tank. So I suppose it is not very realistic in the game.
Btw, the bursting charge are used to increase the after-effect of rounds after penetrate the Armor, there is no evidence that the explosion of bursting charge in the thickest place of tank for instance the upper hull front of panther can damage the sub-system(optics and radio) of tank.
-
A further important finding:
The shermans in the CMBN used different ammo,only the 75mm rounds fired from the M4A3 75(W) (early mid) and M4A1(late) can damage the sub-system, these rounds has HE-charge, when the rounds hit the grounds,they explode. All the other version of sherman including the shermans used by the CW and the shermans in the CMFI fire the 75mm without the HE-charge and do no harm to the sub-system.this is really strange for the game. Different version of sherman used different type of rounds, this is totally un-realistic for WW2.
-
The wrong uniform of the US para, you can check the picture in the link below:
http://s1201.beta.photobucket.com/user/yuyanzhe1986/media/672A547D540D_zps43b87cc7.jpg.html
-
US 37mm AP does not have a bursting charge. Which tank did you use to test the 75mm?
Definitely, the 37mm APCBC has HE charge, you can check this in the CMx1.
The 75mm that I tested is fire from the US sherman tank in both the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI.
The strange thing is in CMBN 1.11, the US 37mm and 75mm do have the damage effect to the sub-system.
-
If US 75mm is not doing any subsystem damage in CMBN 2.0 then that is a change from 1.0 at least, if not more recently. I did some testing on the effect of optics damage last year under v1.0 and it was US Sherman 75s that I used to knock out the optics in the Panthers and Tigers.
This change begins at the 2.0 engine,I just test this in CMBN 1.11 in my old laptap, both the 37mm and 75mm do harm to the sub-system.
you can test it with yourself, just remember, created a new test, old battles sometimes cause data error.
-
I further test the damage model with all the rounds in both the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI.
First,all my tests is in the situation that the rounds hit the armor without penetrate it.
1.all the british rounds(17pdrs 6pdrs) can not damage the sub-system in any vehicle in the game when hit the target without penetration, possible because all bristish rounds are not filled with HE charge.
2.all the rounds with HE charge (GE:50mm,75mm,88mm,Italy:47mm,US 76mm 57mm) do harm to the sub-system especially the radio and optics when the rounds hit the target without penetrate it.
3.In both the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI,the US 75mm and 37mm do no harm to the sub-system in any of the vehicles in the game when the rounds don't penetrate it.
As we all know both the US 75mm and 37mm are filled with a big HE charge. Then BFC ,could you explain this,why this happen?
-
There is also a uniform issue with the American parachute. In all battles with American para, the airborne unform become the infantry uniform without any gear on it. Just check the battle"Vierville"
-
I apologize for my mistake. It seems that the problem lies on the test itself. I used my old test battle that I created in the old version of the game. When I created a new test, the result is same as the CMFI, all the 75mm rounds bounce off the armor without any damage to the sub-system. However this is still very trick, the battle created in the older version may cause some data error in the new vesion of game.
-
This is not a controlled comparison as the ammunition carried by the Sherman has likely changed at the later date.
There are two type of 75mm rounds,M61 APCBC,M72 AP.M72 AP is not commonly used by American tank in WW2.So there shouldn't be any difference in ammo.
I also found a very trick phenomenon,In CMFI the 75mm rounds hit the TigerI's front armor just bounce off without any explosion, but in CMBN the 75mm which hit the same place of tiger always explosion and cause damage to the radio and optics even if the round can not penetrate the armor.
-
I just make a comparing test that TigerI vs 5 M4 at 250m(because 75mm can not penetrate the front armor of tiger),After a lot of tests,I found that in CMFI after took a lot of 75mm rounds from M4,there is no damage in any of the sub-system,but in CMBN2.0 the radio and optic are very vulnerable which gradually become damaged after take the same number of rounds.I suppose the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI should use the same damage model, So is there a bug in one of the games?
-
Just let you guys know that the shader fixer made by the BFC in CMFI also works fine in the CMBN 2.0.Good job BFC!
-
The shader part of the hotfix was an optional shader. It's still optional.
Thank you for your reply!
I sincerely hope that when the CMBN 2.0 released,we can also obtain a similar optional shader hotfix!
-
I strongly doubted this.
When I deleted the old shade fix,and installed the 1.01 patch,it seems that those stripe shadows on the buildings and vehicles appeared again and when I reinstalled the shade fix,everything just fine.
-
I want to ask if the shade fix that released previously be included in the 1.01 patch?
When I deleted the old shade fix,and installed the 1.01 patch,it seems that those stripe shadows on the buildings and vehicles appeared again.
-
Definitely,this is not a bug,just because this Pak38 has limited HE rounds(6 rounds) but plenty of AP rounds,the TacAI fire the AP rounds to preserve the HE rounds.
-
yeah,I also met this phenomenon occasionally not only with the Indian troop but also the US troop.I have never seen this in CMBN.
-
I have the same problem.
-
This is my favourite feature in the CW.
BFC,will this feature also in the CMSF in the future?
-
I suppose this is not the issue related to the penetration of the round but related to the change of the game engine from CMX1 to CMX2.
In CMx1 things are abstract,when you place your troop in the forest,they are not in the place that you see from the screen.In fact the engine calulation according to the situation that your troop are well place them behind good cover(trees),but in CMX2,things are completely different.the troop are in the place that they actually are and the AI can not place every soldiers behind good cover(trees),in this situation,the trees can not give enough cover because the soldier can not well use it.
-
are sounds separate now? no more sound sharing?
No change in 1.01
-
ah seems that i have to put ash on my head because i`ve released the first test including my opinion to fast:
i`ve ran another test now 70 times but with sherman m4a3 76mm to prove that the weapon mount is the stronger part (the 76mm should now be able to penetrate those turret area if my theory about the weapon mount (= mantlet) is right).
so after 70 tests (7 X 1 minute, with 10 tanks on each side, each in their lane, range 500m) i got these results:
panther turret hits:
8 times
penetrations or partial penetrations:
4 times
armor spalling:
2 times
panther weapon mount hits: (i`ve looked to the area where the hits were taken and it was allways in the mantlet/turret area, at least when i could clearly tell where they actually hit)
16 times
penetrations or partial penetrations:
2 times
armor spalling:
0 times
my opinion:
this second test clearly shows that the weapon mount is the stronger part and also that my theory that the weapon mount is reffering to the mantlet might be true (at least this test supports it
).but its also very different to the first test because this time the mantlet (weapon mount) part was hit double the times than the turret area. which seems now very correct (realistic) to me...
still strange why the first test shows a so much different picture !? might come from the lower number of tests. but in the second test the tendency towards the weapon mount area was there from the beginning while in the first test allways more turret hits were achieved (maybe just bad luck).
ok at least my tests have showed that those weapon mount part might really reffer to the mantlet.
I suppose your theory is absolutlely right.In fact the solid provement is in 1.01 patch fix list:
"Armor penetrations through a vehicle's main gun mantlet are not reported as hits on other locations"
in 1.00,all penetration in the front of tank's turret shows the"turret front penetration",never show the "weapon mount penetration" the 1.01 patch fix this
).
There is a bug with the MG bunker in 2.01
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I repeat this tests again and again, got the completely different results with yours, just wait other player's result.