shift8

I am refering to the American long 76, not the Russian short one.

I just went and double checked the 85mm gun in CMRT, since I did those tests separately and a long time ago. I got the results I expected. Just like the 76mm gun on the Sherman, most rounds are PP's or Just hits. about 1/3rd of all hits are penetrations, which is very much like the American 76 in CMBN. Test was at 600m. As for said reports, its hard to judge anecdotal evidence. Just like the stuff I mentioned, alot of vehicles that were not Tigers were reported as such. There is no reason what so ever that the 76mm and 85mm guns should not penetrate the Tigers front at normal combat ranges, unless the angle of impact is very high. Also, the 76mm and 75mm guns are Far more than fraction different in performance. It is night and day. The 76mm gun makes it through 93mm at 30 @ 500m, and the 75mm only makes it though 66. The difference is huge.

After considerable testing in CMBN, I have determined (as many here already are aware) that the Tiger deflects almost all 76mm hits from the front at ranges well within the penetration zone for the 76mm gun at low obliquity at ranges of 500 to 1000m. In my estimation, there seems to be no reason what-so-ever that the 76mm gun should not be able to reliably penetrate the Tigers frontal armor at reasonable angles under 1000m. At the very least under 800m. What exactly is battlefronts reason for this? I personally suspect that this is intended to be the shatter gap, a effect that I personally think is nonsense. At the very least, it is being overdone. According to Rexfords book( battlefront having already made it clear that they used this author for advice) the shatter gap theory is predicated on a few oddball tidbits thrown together to prove an effect whose original source was unfounded in the first place. Rexford states that origin for historical belief in this problem comes from Bailey's accounts from Tiger engagements in Normandy. This entire source can be discarded out right since there were no Tiger tanks fighting the Americans in Normandy, making this a clear example of American tank crews presuming every vehicles was a Tiger. In other words, the origin for this is nonsense. He then goes on to state that Isigny tests on the Panther mantlet, presuming that the reason 76mm rounds could only penetrate at 200m was due to shatter gap. This is as massive stretch, as we dont necessarily know what parts of the mantlet were struck, or at what angle. IE: if they hit the mantley square, they should go through, but striking the upper or lower parts would be alot harder to penetrate. Essentially, this is case of making specific assumptions about the conditions and results of a test to prove a phenomenon. Completely silly. He also shows the 3inch gun tests and makes alot of assumptions as to what they actually show. Said tests make no mention of shatter gap failure, but he assumes that when failures did occur inside the ratios he concocted up, that they occurred due to shatter gap. However the real issue here is that all of this witchcraft is in direct contention with the actual data. We already know from US gun tests that more than 50% of the time they were capable of penetrating the amount of armor listed in the charts. Those rounds were standard M62 projectiles with the same 59 Rockwell that he claims would have caused this this issue on American and other nations rounds. Shoeburyness tests even showed 76mm APCBC making it though 100mm armor at as much as 30 degrees at 500m. In other words, even if shatter gap was real, if did not prevent the rounds from performing according to the American penetration tables, which presume a 50% success rate like most other nations tables. Clearly there is room for success above this rate was well, as the shoeburyness tests show. This issue would also affect the 85mm gun on T-34, which should also be able to penetrate the Tiger in CMRT, but cannot......despite there being tests, complete with photographs, of this being the case. So what is the deal here? And how can we get this changed?

There were ZERO, I say again:--ZERO-Tigers on the American sector in Normandy. Any accounts Faint Praise uses are just good examples of Americans reporting everything as a Tiger. From the descriptions in Rexfords own book, they appear to combat accounts. I have never seen any 1944 tests on Tigers done by the United States. The tests on German tanks done after and during the battle are well known, specifically the isigny tests, which involved no Tigers. On the subject of those tests, they did test the 76mm gun on a 100mm armor plate at 30 degrees, and it penetrated just fine---a fact Rexford dismisses in his book. In CMx1, the Shatter gap for the 76mm gun was fairly rare, but in CMx2 it is all over the place. Even German tests claim the 76mm gun could Kill the Tiger from 400-600M. Outside of Rexford and Bailey, I havent been able to find anyone else claiming "Shatter Gap" was a thing aside from people quoting either Rexford or Bailey. Anything used in Baileys book should be taken with a large grain of salt in particular----since it is one of those "The shermans are death trap, oh my, how stupid the Army was to not have 90mm guns," sort of narratives.

Id love to know what Tiger he supposedly engaged, given that there were no Tigers on the American front in france.... Also, those mantle hits mean nothing. For all we know, the penetration might have been limited due to the failure rounds hitting the upper or lower sections of the mantlet. As for the Navy tests: Id like to see those....and see if they make any mention of shatter gap. Funny how this problem never came up in the original testing of these guns. What is more, with this being only one of the 2 manufactures, you wouldnt expect it to happen 75% of the time like it does now

Sorry my bad, I should have been more clear, I mean at 500m or more, not that it couldn't penetrate at any range. Ive seen the F-34 kill Pz4 from SH and LH in game from 200m or so. Ive seen flukes farther than that, but reliably. Sorry for that confusion, I thought the debate was for 500m distance, not any range. Of course F-34 could do it at 100, or even 200m. MAYBE even 500m, but not reliably I think.

For starters, I dont know what version of CMBB you have....but those penetration values arent whats given in game. The T-34 has the following values for the 76: APC from 100, 500, 1000m: 93, 73, 63. APCR: 133, 95, 62. Actual Russian numbers for the APC round: 88, 69, 60. (http://amizaur.prv.pl/www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/soviet_guns5.html) APCR: 500m 90mm, 1000m 60mm. With APCR, it would certainly make it though at 500m or so-----and it does just that in game. So I dont know what the deal is. 76mm APC did not penetrate the 80mm of armor on Stugs or Pz4s: in game, theoretically, or IRL. It doesnt even come close. Even the German figure you posted completely agree with that. Also, you info on the Tiger is wrong. The Front Upper Hull, by which I think you mean superstructure: is 100mm thick, 100.9mm if you want to nitpick and add in the slope. To Boot, the chart you lined to shows a maximum penetration at 100m of just over 90mm. Basically in agreement with what I just posted. Totally in inadequate to make it thought the Tigers Hull. CMBB and RT do the armor just fine. The Both the chart you sent, the games values, and the data I posted all agree that the 80mm is too much for the 76mm in T-34 except at 100m or less.

Indeed, I have seen this image. Question is, how does CMBN view it.

Well I haven't read the entire thread, the the opening statement in the thread is nonsense. The 76mm ZiS would have been very hard pressed to get though the 80mm on a Stug, even at 500m---in fact youd need to be at least 200m or less, given that the 0 degree penetration for the 76mm in the T-34 was only 69mm at NORMAL. and 88mm at 100m. Also, I disagree that the CMBB has any serious issues. The AP simulation in that games is one the the best ever done.

Disregard.

This isnt the case. Even since CMx1 the AP simulation has been near perfect. Virtually everything is taken into account in CMx2 especially. This is why the CM series of games is basically the only thing out there will accurate WW2 tank combat.

At first I always thought that a partial penetration was as defined in certain US Army tests: A bulge on the inside armor but no break in the armor. In CMx1 this made sense to me, as tanks rarly went down due to PP, but might bail if they were rookie crews. In CMx2, PP seems to kill tanks about as often as it does nothing, making me think it might be alot more than just a bulge in the armor, as I seriously doubt the abillity of such a bulge to cause the tank to explode or catch fire......as can happen in CMx2. It makes me wonder if the PP in CMx2 if not just a bulge, but perhaps varying states of "less than complete" clearance of the projectile through the armor. For example, half the shell might get stuck in the armor, and the rest breaks off and fly though. Or in other cases perhaps only a chink of the projectile makes it in. In any case, the more testing I do the less likely it seems that it is just a bulge in the inside armor, as and damage caused by that would seem more in line with spalling.

I only want to know out of curiosity. And Im not so sure the distinction is as small as you think. Ive seen many a tank downed by a PP, which is one of the main reasons I want to know what it entails. I haven't seen a tank knocked out by spalling yet--not that it cant happen...but clearly the PP is a more significant effect. But oh well. If nobody is saying oh well.

That doesn't even make sense, much less bear any relevance to the question. When the game was designed, specific parameters had to have defined what a "partial penetration" was. So there IS a clear definition, and Im posting here to find out if the devs or someone else has ever known or put out what that was. Knowing the difference between a Penetration and a partial penetration as it was defined by the dev's makes a huge difference with regard to understanding the game and its mechanics. Is a PP part of the projectile making it through but not all? Or perhaps the shell is lodged in the armor and sticking out? Or perhaps it just means a large bulge in the interior without a crack or hole in the plate? Or maybe its all or none of these things at the same time. It matters because it helps to know how effective a round is being when it PP's, and if the game is being accurate. If noone knows the difference then oh well, but you needn't walk in here and disregard the question just because you dont have the info to answer it. Your not going to sit here and have the gall to tell me what does or does not matter to me, or what should matter to me. That is my prerogative, not yours. Dont have the answer or dont personally care? Fine, but dont try to push it on me.

It matters to me since it tells me how the penetration mechanics in the game work.

M-61A1 penetrates the same. M72 does better vs RHA. M72 could penetrate 92mm at normal and could be able to make it through 80mm at 24 degrees. M61 would make it though 80mm RHA at 9 degrees.

So what exactly does this mean in CM? I originally thought that it might just be round making it part of the way through the armor....but that would apply to just about any hit that doesn't penetrate. So in a PP does some of the round make it through?

Sorry but that doesn't solve the issue. 81mm would make penetration of the Superstructure on the Pz4 or Side Superstructure on the Tiger extremely difficult. Any round impacting at a angle of greater than 9 degrees offset wouldnt make it though, and thats not accounting for the fact that no two rounds go down range exactly the same, hence the penetration tables being averages of penetration within certain criteria. If 81mm was enough, then we'd be seeing Sherman 76mm's KOing Tigers from 1200m with straight shots....and we dont see that in game....or from historical reference FTM. WO185/175 claimed 94mm of penetration for the M-61 round and 88mm for the M-72 at 500m, granting alot more room for error especially with a little obliquity. Perhaps the penetration tests the Americans conducted were on the low side? Then again, the same rounds tested by the Americans in the M2 gun had precisely the same relationship between them regarding penetration. M-72 being better vs RHA. I cannot find any evidence from a source that isn't random chatter on a forum that M72 AP fell out of use, and I have found at least on picture of a Sherman crewman in September of 1944 carrying the M-72 round. If you don't have time to look for the source then that is your prerogative, but until I see something substantial I see no reason to assume M-72 AP wasn't being used in large numbers right along side M-61 and M-61A1 right up to the end of the war. It would seem silly to get rid of a round that was completely superior to the M-61 against the most common type of armor found on German tanks. Since M72 AP could penetration 92mm of RHA at 500m, and 84mm at 750m, this seems much more in line with the performance of the gun in ALL of the CM games. Either that or the M-61 historically penetrated alot more armor than the official American testing claimed. WO 185/175 being evidence for that.

What is the sources on M72 not being used in 44? So far all I can find on the internet is heresay on other forums but no sources. Also, if M72 wasnt being used, then why does just about everyone agree the performance on the 75mm gun? Regarding the Pz4 Front or Tiger side, every combat mission allows for penetrations around 500m, as well as many other games etc. It appears to me as though only M72 would do the job.

This is just a curiosity I am hoping someone here can answer. So in all the combat mission games the Sherman 75mm can penetrate the 80mm hull on the Pz4 from 400-600m fairly reliably. I have no problem with this whatsoever. What I am curious about is the relationship between the M61, M61A1, and M72 rounds. In the data from hunnicutts book, the M72 seems to do better vs RHA, but in the British tests shown in WO 185/175, the M61 out of the M3 does better than the 72 vs RHA. Now, several websites I have seen claim the M61 is capable of the 3.7inches of penetration or 94mm vs RHA, and that seems to be very much in agreement with the 92mm often seen quoted for penetration at normal in other places. However, I saw a photo of a book recently on some forum showing 81mm at 0 for the M61 and the 92mm for the 72 at 0. Basically, what I want to know is this: is the 92-94mm at normal for the M72 or M61? In addition, was the M72 still being used in 1944 in NW Europe? I have searched all over and have found scant evidence for this. The best thing I have found so far is one picture of a M72 being held by a crew in italy in 1944.

Well then I vote after Bulge they make Combat Mission Operation Unthinkable!

Why is this? Is it done on purpose?

Need some help with this if anyone can! I want to import units from CMBN to CMRT. or Vise Versa. Any Ideas on how to do this?