Erwin.Rommel
-
Posts
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Erwin.Rommel
-
-
I suppose this picture may explain the use of these type of Machine guns that attach to the rear part of the turret
http://s1201.photobucket.com/albums/bb350/yuyanzhe1986/?action=view¤t=1.jpg
For my exprience of M10 in CMBN,the crews only use the .50 when the ememy infantry appeared opposite to the direction of turret behind the vehicle .
-
No. It seems reasonable to me.
Then the results in CMAK seems unreasonable to you?
-
I repeatly tests the M5A1 VS IV(IV holds fire),the range is about 200-300m.the result:50mm turret front is no need to discuss.For the hull,37mm APCBC can not penetrate lower front and upper front of IV in the given range,the rounds that hit the superstructure front of IV can achieved penetration or partial penetration(mostly the partial),above results has no problem.My real concern is,during these repeat tests,just 2-3 penetrations on the superstructure front leads to a "KO" .As we know the 37mm APCBC shot has no explosive charge,these small calibar rounds don't have much aftereffect when penetrated about 80mm Armor.I created the same tests in CMAK,almost all the rounds that penetrate hull(even the turret) result in a "no serious damage",and the IV is still alive after been penetrated many times.So,Is the aftereffect of 37mm AP shot been modelled too high in CMBN?
-
1000m shots, even by a short barreled Sherman 75, would rarely miss under reasonable combat conditions. IIRC it was in the 90 something percentile range. At about this range, however, the short 75s started to drop off more rapidly than the higher velocity rounds.
Steve
During the ww2 era,the accuracy of tank fire is largely depend on the precisely estimate the range to the target which is highly rely on the crew's exprience.Not every crew except those crack or elite one can achieve the first shot hit over 1000m because of the range estimate error.But after spot the first shot,gunner can corrected the right range,the second shot should precisely hit the target at this range most of the time just like it appears in 1.01 and CMX1.Great job,BFC!
-
I did a lot of tests both in CMBN and CMAK.Now I'm pretty sure that when shooting from 100m-1000m,the accuracy of tank fire in CMBN 1.01 is quite similar to the accuracy in CMAK during the clear days.I haven't test the longer range,however they shouldn't have much difference.
what we lack now in CMBN is that the weather conditions still has no effect on the accuracy,it only affects the spotting ability.In CMBB/AK,Different weather conditions affect not only the ranger of LOS but also the accuracy.I do hope BFC can combined these features together in the near future.
-
Let me amend my post, directly above...
This short firing MAY be a correction to the previous method of shooting DIRECTLY at infantry. It is obviously better/realistic to have explosive shells land amid infantry, rather than striking one individual in the chest or head.
It seems to be an improvement over the previous "hit the man" technique.
Having said that, it does seem to place the rounds a bit too short. They are hitting such that the infantry is often outside the blast effects. (HEAT is a compromise round for anti-personnel work. This probably plays into it.)
Ken
I agree with you,the HEAT round always can not effectively deal with infantry.I suppose the rounds should randomly hit the area around the target but not always hit the same place.In CMBN this issue is definitely not exist,the tank in the CMBN is really killing machines compare to the tanks in CMSF.
Maybe we should wait for some official explanations
-
I did a small test that I created in CMBN 1.00.Panther and M4A3(76)w (all regulars)shoot each other at about 1000m(no hull down).During my test in 1.00,the panther almost achieved first shot hit every times,then I repeated the test in 1.01,to my surprise,the panther has a very high chance to miss it's first shot over 1000m,but the second shot always hit the target.for the M4A3(76)w,it is less accurate,it always takes 2-3 shot to hit the target over 1000m.I suppose BFC do decrease the accuracy of the tank fire especially the first shot accuracy.
-
When I create a small test that I put a tank(test the M1,leopard,challenger) in the open ground and a enemy infantry unit about 100m from the tank,when the mission start,the tank spot the enemy unit that lay on the ground,the issue appeared ,the tank's rounds repeatly hit the ground in front of the enemy unit.I also test this in CMBN,no the issue.So BFC,this is feature or a bug?
-
No, not possible. The basic game mechanics means there is one Team per Action Spot. A Team can never be Split, therefore you can not spread a Team out into more than one Action Spot on purpose (it can happen when moving, but that is a temporary state). Since you can't Split a Team the number of foxholes for an Action Spot must be sufficient to accommodate up to 7 Soldiers. Each foxhole holds 2 Soldiers, so that means 4 foxholes per Action Spot are required. It is physically impossible to fit 4 foxholes in any other configuration than what is in the game now.
Steve
Steve,in the future patches,can we get a feature that we can change the direction of the foxholes?I have done some tests in which I found when the direction of the team in the foxhole are different from the direction of the foxhole itself,the team always can not position themselves correctly and get out of foxhole to find some new place,in some specific situation,5-6 soldiers position them in a foxhole and the other three are empty.
-
At some point (September?) 90mm M36 TD is going to arrive and Panther will be meat-on-the-table. M36 penetrates a Panther front plate at 1200 yards.
The M36 is not that effective as it is supposed to because the 90mm M82 APCBC has difficult to deal with the upper front hull of the panther,if there is no flaws on the upper front hull of the panther,according to the theoretical caculation M82 APCBC can not penetrate it even at point blank range.
During a field test of the M36 TD with the M77 AP and M82 APCBC,three rounds been fired at about 150-200yards,two rounds just partially penetrate the upper front hull another round achieve a complete penetration but on the juntion between the upper front hull and lower front hull which is suppose to be a potential weak point
until the T33 APBC arrived with the Pershing.the panther finally became the real meat on the table.
-
Just play the la deset scenario as America side .I lost one M10 and Knock out three Panther .in fact I manager to penetrate the panther's front low hull once and turret front once,but all these two penetrations are ineffective,all panther losses result from side attack.one from 57mm first then bazooka,the other two from M10's 76mm.I suppose in fact normandy is good place to ambush these big cats because those high bocage give you the good cover to flank them and the fire range is always below 150-200 yards
-
I don't think anybody is questioning the accuracy of the guns themselves (especially the Tiger and Panther guns, with their flat trajectories). The problem is the accuracy of the human firing the gun, when that human is on a moving, vibrating, bumpy platform. Imagine how hard it would be to sight in a target using a little eyepiece, rotate the turret to the correct angle using foot pedals, raise the barrel to the correct elevation, etc. while someone else is driving the tank (most likely in a direction other than the one the barrel is pointing) hitting bumps, varying speed, etc.
The chances of getting off a shot under those conditions is very slim, even with a very close and stationary target. With targets 500 - 1500 meters away and moving.... no way you could make a shot like that. If you could, they wouldn't have bothered with gyrostabilized guns, computer range finding, etc. that are found in modern tanks.
During the ww2 era especially in the actual combat even shooting the stationary target can not be very accurate.here is the famous experts lorrin bird's caculation about the accuraccy of the ww2 tank.
FIRST ROUND ACCURACY OF GERMAN GUNS
The following hit percentages are taken from German ballistic tables
(capped AP) and refer to the case where the range is known to a
stationary 2m high by 2.5m wide target, and the random dispersion is
doubled to model battlefield conditions:
RANGE..50L60...75L48...75L70...88L56...88L71
500m........100.....100.....100......100.....100
1000m.... ...95......66......97.......93......85
1500m........68......33......72.......74......61
2000m................16......49.......50......43
2500m.................8......29.......31......34
3000m.................5......18.......19......25
Relative dispersion in the above table follows some unexpected
patterns, with 75L70 being less scatter prone than 88L56 out to
1000m, but after that range 88L56 is slightly more accurate in terms
of repeatability. With regard to 88L71, the scatter pattern is more
diffuse than 75L70 and 88L56 at ranges out to 2000m but then attains
a superior performance at 2500m which increases with range.
German data for their use of the captured Russian 76.2mm L51.5 gun
showed dispersion patterns similar to the 75L48 when APCBC was
fired., with similar hit percentages with a known range.
The 50L60 and 88L71 data applies to both the tank gun and towed
weapons, while the 88L56 figures are limited to the tank gun. Review
of data for the 88mm L56 Flak suggests that that weapon may have
possessed greater dispersion than the tank gun.
The marked inferiority of 75L48 scatter to the other guns is
unexpected., since the 75L43 was used to knock-out T34’s at ranges
above 1000m. It would be interesting to see if 75mm L46 Pak 40
dispersion had the same general values as the 75L48, which came along
at a later date.
It has been written that the introduction of the 50mm Pak in Africa
greatly extended the range of direct fire combat for tank and anti-
tank gun units, and the relatively close scatter pattern and
excellent gun sight quality for that weapon would be superior to the
2 pdr anti-tank gun in both respects.
Using the German figures for doubled random dispersion and assuming
an average range estimate error of 25% with a bell shaped error
distribution (typical results for average crew, based on British and
American firing trials), the following first round hit percentages
were computed against a stationary 2m high by 2.5m wide target:
FIRST ROUND HIT %
RANGE...50L60...75L48...75L70...88L56...88L71
500m...........81......75.....88.......79.....94
800m...........36......34.....51.......39.....61
1100m..........17......15.....28.......21.....34
1400m...........9.......7.....16.......12.....19
Muzzle velocities are 835 m/s for 50L60, 750 m/s for 75L48, 935 m/s
for 75L70, 780 m/s for 88L56 and 1000 m/s for 88L71. All rounds APCBC
except APC for 50L60
A 2m x 2.5m target size was used by the Germans as a reasonable model
for the front view of a typical target tank, which simplified the
calculations. Those dimensions simplify the complex variations in
target width with height (T34 turret front is narrower than hull and
has sloping sides, T34 hull width varies with height, etc.), and
probably assume that ground rolls and folds blocked out some of the
lower tank area.
The above stated estimates for first round hit percentage probably
represent the high side of what would be expected from average troops
in battle, since “nervous and/or fatigue” origin errors were not
considered during the calculations. Under the stress of combat,
people can forget intermediate steps and see things on the gun sight
that are not there. Discussions on the AFV News forum site have
brought out the possibility that unquantifiable human errors may
account for a good share of the reported misses at “sure thing”
ranges.
Regarding second shot corrections after misses, the Germans advised
that bracketing should be used at ranges above 1200m using 200m
increments below 2000m and 400m above that distance. At or below
1200m, "fire for effect" corrections to the initial shot would be
made using various methods that would result in a more accurate
change in shot placement than adding or subtracting 200m.
An American gunnery manual for the Sherman indicates that bracketing
is to be used at ranges over 1000 yards due to gun sight limitations
which restrict the crew ability to make fine adjustments to the gun
setting.
-
I set up a test map with squads hiding in buildings, and platoons outside firing at the buildings from 30m to 80m ranges. Using just rifle and LMG fire (both German and US) there were no causalities among the 20 test squads (10 each German and US).
When I ran the test again using the regular target command (as opposed to target light) and the platoons started using their rifle grenades and bazookas and panzerfausts, well that was just a bloodbath.
So the buildings seem to provide perfect cover to prone soldiers from light arms fire, but not much from even light explosions.
I suppose he's talking about the accuracy when the unit has been spotted but not the building againest the area fire.the issue seems long exist from the CMSF era,the small arm's area fire nearly can do little harm to the enemy except the surpressing effect but when a unit in building has been spotted and be targeted then,the incoming fire become deadly effective even the targeted unit has prone and seeking cover.
-
FIRST ROUND ACCURACY OF GERMAN GUNS
The following hit percentages are taken from German ballistic tables
(capped AP) and refer to the case where the range is known to a
stationary 2m high by 2.5m wide target, and the random dispersion is
doubled to model battlefield conditions:
RANGE..50L60...75L48...75L70...88L56...88L71
500m........100.....100.....100......100.....100
1000m.... ...95......66......97.......93......85
1500m........68......33......72.......74......61
2000m................16......49.......50......43
2500m.................8......29.......31......34
3000m.................5......18.......19......25
Relative dispersion in the above table follows some unexpected
patterns, with 75L70 being less scatter prone than 88L56 out to
1000m, but after that range 88L56 is slightly more accurate in terms
of repeatability. With regard to 88L71, the scatter pattern is more
diffuse than 75L70 and 88L56 at ranges out to 2000m but then attains
a superior performance at 2500m which increases with range.
German data for their use of the captured Russian 76.2mm L51.5 gun
showed dispersion patterns similar to the 75L48 when APCBC was
fired., with similar hit percentages with a known range.
The 50L60 and 88L71 data applies to both the tank gun and towed
weapons, while the 88L56 figures are limited to the tank gun. Review
of data for the 88mm L56 Flak suggests that that weapon may have
possessed greater dispersion than the tank gun.
The marked inferiority of 75L48 scatter to the other guns is
unexpected., since the 75L43 was used to knock-out T34’s at ranges
above 1000m. It would be interesting to see if 75mm L46 Pak 40
dispersion had the same general values as the 75L48, which came along
at a later date.
It has been written that the introduction of the 50mm Pak in Africa
greatly extended the range of direct fire combat for tank and anti-
tank gun units, and the relatively close scatter pattern and
excellent gun sight quality for that weapon would be superior to the
2 pdr anti-tank gun in both respects.
Using the German figures for doubled random dispersion and assuming
an average range estimate error of 25% with a bell shaped error
distribution (typical results for average crew, based on British and
American firing trials), the following first round hit percentages
were computed against a stationary 2m high by 2.5m wide target:
FIRST ROUND HIT %
RANGE...50L60...75L48...75L70...88L56...88L71
500m...........81......75.....88.......79.....94
800m...........36......34.....51.......39.....61
1100m..........17......15.....28.......21.....34
1400m...........9.......7.....16.......12.....19
Muzzle velocities are 835 m/s for 50L60, 750 m/s for 75L48, 935 m/s
for 75L70, 780 m/s for 88L56 and 1000 m/s for 88L71. All rounds APCBC
except APC for 50L60
A 2m x 2.5m target size was used by the Germans as a reasonable model
for the front view of a typical target tank, which simplified the
calculations. Those dimensions simplify the complex variations in
target width with height (T34 turret front is narrower than hull and
has sloping sides, T34 hull width varies with height, etc.), and
probably assume that ground rolls and folds blocked out some of the
lower tank area.
The above stated estimates for first round hit percentage probably
represent the high side of what would be expected from average troops
in battle, since “nervous and/or fatigue” origin errors were not
considered during the calculations. Under the stress of combat,
people can forget intermediate steps and see things on the gun sight
that are not there. Discussions on the AFV News forum site have
brought out the possibility that unquantifiable human errors may
account for a good share of the reported misses at “sure thing”
ranges.
Regarding second shot corrections after misses, the Germans advised
that bracketing should be used at ranges above 1200m using 200m
increments below 2000m and 400m above that distance. At or below
1200m, "fire for effect" corrections to the initial shot would be
made using various methods that would result in a more accurate
change in shot placement than adding or subtracting 200m.
An American gunnery manual for the Sherman indicates that bracketing
is to be used at ranges over 1000 yards due to gun sight limitations
which restrict the crew ability to make fine adjustments to the gun
setting.
-
you can replace the original sounds with your own version.
-
Already use your great mod combined with vein's
-
This problem exists in CMSF too.I suppose in the game,the gunner just aim at a single soldier of the target unit when the round(AP or HE) accurately hit the the targeted soldier but not the nearby ground,this issue appeared
-
CMBN manual has ausf A at 110mm ausf D at 100mm. They seem to have changed their sources since CMBB and CMAK.
I know that and another armor change or correction from the CMBB and CMAK is that the lower hull front armor of the ausf G is reduced to 50mm/55. I absolutely believe the expertise of BFC in these aspects.
It seems that the 110mm of the ausf A in the manual means the turret front armor,I extract the improvement of the A from D in the CMBN manual as follows:
1.improved turret traverse speed
2.improved commander's cupola
3.Adds periscope for the loader
4.110mm "turret front Armor"(ausf D is 100mm) **
5.upper hull front is no longer face-hardened
6.Armor:15-120mm(0.5-4.7in) this data makes me guess that the mantlet thickness that BFC used in the CMBN is 120mm
-
Or I can go to the docs that Jentz has or actully measure the Panther ausf A in Saumr tank museum that has a working Panther Ausf a (during the 90s) which has a Mantlet at it's thickest 110mm.
Well,it is sure that there are many different claims.what I mean is at least in the CMAK and CMBB,the BFC adopt the "100mm/curved mantlet"version.
-
That's good to know, and certainly something I didn't know before. Thank you.
This might be getting a bit off-point and just a correction, but the additional protection I'm speaking of on the Tiger mantlet does not come from the overlap of mantlet and front turret armor. It was a complex shape, and some sections of the mantlet itself were simply thicker than the 100mm figure (sometimes much thicker). There were also 100mm sections, as well as the areas in front of the trunions which seem to have been 90mm. The point I was trying to make is that sometimes these books tend to pull a single value for armor thickness based on an average, since some structures might be too complex to list individually. I'm not saying that's the case with the Panther (and Bastables seems to have a very good explanation here anyway), but offering this up as a suggestion.
After lots of tests,I found that for the tank(with turret),the hit laber will never show the weapon mount being penetrated even I used the German PAK43 to attack the panther's turret which is almost sure to penetrate(during this test all the PAK43's round hitting the turret is penetration but all shows"turret front penetration"),my best guess is that the hit laber in the CMBN only show the last hit area of the target vehicle,So if the round penetrate the mantlet then into the turret,it only show the last hitting place:the "turret front penetrated",in fact "turret front penetrated"in CMBN="weapon mount penetrated+turret front penetrate",I have another evidence that support my guess is during one of my tests when an imcoming round hit the panther's upper hull front and ricochet to the weapon mounted,the hit laber only shows"hit weapon mount"which is the last place be hit but not including the "hit upper hull front"
-
The Panthers turret was changed during 1943/44 which is why you have the Ausf A model, CM represents this by having if the manual is correct Ausf D has 100mm mantlet, ausf A 110mm mantlet. The ausf G "Chin" introduced on the later to counter act bounces was about 120mm. ausf G was originally a hull change with ausf A turret.
I don't know what hit on the weapon mount represents in game.
You can check the CMAK or CMBB,all the panther has the same 100mm/curve mantlet,the statements from some materials that said it changes from 100mm to 110mm refer to the "turret front" not the "mantlet"
-
According to some sources, sure. But then, GvA gives 100mm as the thickness of the the Tiger's mantlet, too, and there've been core measurements made since showing it to be around 120mm or more in many spots. Separate case, I know, but it's a possibility that could explain this.
For the front protection of the tiger,it is anther story,because the tiger's mantlet is very special,it is completely different from the panther,its 100mm mantlet and turret front armor overlap at most of the area.as a result,the tiger turret front protection is range from 100mm to 200mm,most area is about 200mm,for the panther,there is no armor behind the mantlet,so the protection is just 100mm/curve.
So,during the ww2,an hull downed tiger is a very horrific enemy for any allied or soviet tank.
-
Then again, I've seen a few sources that also say this mantlet was more than 100mm, some even going as high as 120mm. This would change the scenario a bit, as in the above case penetration was rather close to begin with. In any case, your idea of the penetration being made "easily" goes right out the window, and if the mantlet is indeed as much as 120mm thick, I guess it fits the ballistics for it to resist even a 76mm APCBC at such short range.
The panther's mantlet is 100mm/curve and never change during the war
-
Well,No one is interested in this?I just try the Tiger.All the penatrations appear at the turret front too,all hits at weapon mount with no effect.As we know for the tiger,the mantlet cover almost all the area of the turret front(the tiger's mantlet is very special, the mentlet and the turret front armor overlap at most of the area).Then how the incoming round hit the turret front armor?Does the"turret front" really mean the turret front armor that not covered by the mantlet?
The aftereffect of US 37mm AP shot seems too high in the CMBN
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I just tests the Panther vs IV as you requested.During all the 20 times I tested,Just one APCBC from panther is needed to knock out the IV.whatever the places the rounds hit,the rounds not only penetrate the front armor but also go through the interior of the tank,then penetrate the rear armor of the tank until hits the ground or fly to the outside of the map.