Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Gryphonne

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    249

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Gryphonne

    German tank vulnerability

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Top hits gun/vehicle to vehicle were not modeled in CMx1 regardless of what elevation was involved.

    Not sure whether that changed now. Did the new armour penetration message say?

    I think top armour is now modelled. I've just tested a scenario (granted, not really reliable) by placing an Ambrams on a slope with a BMP-2 positioned on an opposite slope. This way the BMP could fire "down" on the Abrams at 90 degrees (you can place vehicle on very steep slopes by positioning them on the map first and afterwards changing elevation data). The result was that the Abrams was knocked out each and every time by either the BMP-2 autocannon or missile hitting it from the top. Even an RPG would suffice here. Something that I don't *think* would happen as often from a horizontal front aspect anyway.

    0

    Panzer side skirts & Headphones

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I did know about the Soviets using wire mesh on their tanks but I thought they were for anti tank magnetic mines like the Zimmeritt on German tanks.

    All this is well and good but the REAL question is in the photo of German Short Skirts on Parade ..... isn't that a guy's head in the bottom right hand corner,lying on the ground. What on earth is he up to ?

    Or is it only me who looked down that far (after a long pause in the middle) ?

    Apparently, those are Ukranian Short Skirts on parade though ;) seemingly, the use of skirts by Eastern European powers is more common than we thought :D

    0

    Panzer side skirts & Headphones

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    For guys you folks sure like to talk a lot about skirts... can't we just agree that Germans used skirts to show their legs?

    beautiful-ukranian-army.jpg

    Why? Nothing wrong with skirts now is there :D

    Back on topic: I always understood that the side skirts were effective against HEAT rounds, and that this was also the reason for Soviet troops adding all sorts of side skirts to their tanks before the campaign in Berlin 1945 in order to defeat Panzerfausts/Panzerschrecks?

    0

    Panther in the media section possible error?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I noticed that the Panther in the media section has zimmerit covered side skirts. Surely, this wasn't common practice was it? From all the pictures I've seen skirts were never zimmerit coated?

    I take it the Panther model in-game doesn't have the skirts with zimmerit coating? Same goes for the Pz IV, i see it with zimmerit on some of the skirts. However, in Bil's AAR the hull skirts are without zimmerit and the turret skirts are stilll coated?

    Can anyone elaborate?

    DSC_0039.jpg

    0

    German tank vulnerability

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    This picture is from a Panzer IV/70 (A) at Saumur Tank Museum:

    it clearly shows the fragility of the upper glacis plate, having been hit by a 75mm round. The other two rounds hit the lower superstructure for a full and partial penetration.

    Thanks :) I saw a similar hit and penetration on a StuG IV. The Jagdpanzer IV by Alkett, being based on the nose of the Pz IV still possesses the Pz IVs vulnerability obviously. The Jagdpanzer by VOMAG(?) should be less vulnerable as the nose was redesigned.

    0

    German tank vulnerability

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Out of curiosity, I took that technical diagram and actually measured the vertical profile for that thinner glacis, and it came out to be a bit bigger than I expected. It measures just under three-quarters as what the 30mm+50mm upper hull does, and two-thirds as much as the lower hull. If a shot were randomly to strike somewhere withing those three areas, my math estimates a 25% chance of that thinner plate being the point of impact. At about a 72° angle from the normal I'd imagine the slope multiplier would more than compensate for that thin 20mm plate, but I wonder how much good that would have done with overmatching involved from hits by larger caliber guns.

    So after spending about half an hour digging through boxes in my closet looking for that copy of "World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery" (whose cover has made an interesting change in color from bright orange to green in the decade since I bought it), I can make some calculations from the tables and equations. It seems that plate would have an effective resistance of 96mm to hits that are perfectly horizontal to it from 75mm APC/APCBC rounds. That's better than I'd expected. Anything bigger than 75mm would probably have a bigger impact to overmatching. Then again, any ordnance bigger than 75mm would also probably punch through the front of that with little trouble, anyway. :P

    I'm actually quite surprised about the plate's resistance to overmatching penetrators here. That section still provides a bigger target than one would initially think. So I guess the German engineer's reasoning was indeed that if anything could penetrate these thin plates at high angles, it would probably also penetrate the 80mm sections.

    I wonder how, in comparison to the Pz IV, the StuG would fare; in absolute terms. The armor profile actually seems a bit less vulnerable, but I can't find any info on all the complex geometry of the superstructure. It appears that most plates are 40-45mm and are positioned at 45 degrees from vertical or higher (on par with T-34 front armor?); if true, this would actually provide a reasonable target in hull down position and would be impossible to penetrate by the Sherman's 75mm. Furthermore, I have however found that the upper glacis plate is 30mm and almost horizontal, providing both more protection and a smaller target.

    I think the Pz IVs will have a hard time dealing with Shermans in CMBN, unless they spot those Shermans first, and even then, apparently the upper hull, which presents a very large target, provides fairly adequate protection against the 75/L48. Testing this in CMAK I actually reached the same conclusion, I was just surprised how often the turret is targeted instead of the hull and how easily that is penetrated in comparison. The StuG on the other hand, might be a good deal more survivable.

    In any case, thanks for all the replies guys :)

    0

    German tank vulnerability

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Hey guys,

    I have a question about the possible vulnerability of German tanks: mainly, the StuG and Pz IV.

    I was looking at armour diagrams for both and noticed that for example, the Pz IV has a vulnerable upper glacis plate which provides only 20mm of protection. Despite the angle at which it is positioned it seems very vulnerable, how often would the upper glacis plate get penetrated? Or was the reasoning such that if anything could penetrate the upper glacis plate it would also probably penetrate the 80mm sections?

    Same goes for the StuG, it has a very complex geometry for the superstructure and most of the sections only provide 40-45mm (? - was hard to find the figures) of armor protection. Again, these seem very vulnerable and the 80mm sections seem quite small in comparison. How vulnerable are these sections and is it the case here again that if anything can penetrate these it can probably also wreck the 80mm sections?

    Finally, is all this geometry modelled in CMBN? ;)

    0
×
×
  • Create New...