Entry/exit-holes.

[HawkerT]

Cheers everyone !

I had yet another go at last defence last night - amazing how one does not fall out of love with this game even after playing the same scenario a ridiculous number of times.

I took out the Tiger and found myself looking closely at it, searching for any signs of the exact point of penetration (I figured that I could not rule out BTS’s sense of realism, minute detail and craftmanship coding). But then it struck me, how big IS the entry hole in a Tiger anyway (or in anything else for that matter) – made by say a 75L48 (or a HEAT weapon like the bazooka) firering standard WWII issue armour piercing rounds ? Anybody educated into the science of entry- and maby even exit holes ? (I remember going with my regiment to a live firering of a TOW missile, and I think I recall the entryhole in the old centurion being approximately 1 maybe 2 cm in diameter.) What’s the approximate size of the interior that flakes of and kills the crew if the shot is fired from 100 meters ?

You are probably LOL (thank’s LT) by now, but hey ! I can take it and will not hesitate asking – have you at BTS ever thought about implementing such a thing (that is - if it’s big enough for the naked eye at CM’s scale to view any sign’s of penetration (maybe there is more visual clues then just the hole itself) ?. I know that in CM my infantry would have to be very close to let the FOW show me such detail (the graphics is probably also a nightmare to fit in anyway ?)

Another thing I remembered during my nightly endeavour was a documentary from discovery about the various versions of the Tiger. A german crew told about how they in a special situation had killed a sherman (side penetration) through the brick walls of the house behind which the sherman was hiding (i.e. penetrating both the walls of the house and the side of the sherman, I cant remember the distance (must have been close)). I know these are probably freak occurences but are situations like the one described, or maybe one shot/multiple kills, possible in CM ?

By the way, I have a wish for CM3 – piggybacking the shell in semi-slowmotion all the way to the target, now there’s a visual feast to behold !

Here’s to BTS, the game and the manual.

Frans §

------------------

If you can't join'em beat'em.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Frans,

I don't know the way to figure out the size of the hole a particular shell makes, but AP rounds do seem to make bigger ones than HEAT rounds. I've seen penty of pics of tanks KO'd with holes big enough to stick your arm through. There was one Panther with a HUGE hole in the front glacias plate.

We would *love* to put damage on the vehicles, but this is far too involved to do easily. Something to think about for the future though

Shell rides Yeah, that would be fun!

Steve

[Harold Jones]

As near as I can tell from personal observation and pictures, the hole made by an AP round is the same diameter as the round. If it has enough energy to pass completely through the target then the exit hole will also be approximately the same diameter as the round. The flakes (called spall) that fly around inside a tank after a round penetrates are not especially large and because of their irregular shape they lose energy quickly. Of course there is no lack of things in a tank to be cut up by these fragments before they run out of energy, like electrical lines, hydraulic lines and crew members. Also they are extremely hot so if one should happen to penetrate the casing of a round there is a fair chance that the propellent will ignite with all the nasty consequences that entails.

I've been told that one of the reasons Shermans got a reputation for burning easily was the crew's habit of piling extra 75mm ammo on the turret floor. Since these rounds didn't have even the marginal protection of the ammo stowage bins they were easely ignited by penetrating hits.

[SimonFox]

"I've been told that one of the reasons Shermans got a reputation for burning easily was the crew's habit of piling extra 75mm ammo on the turret floor."

My understanding is that this is incorrect. This reasoning was used by the idiot US army organisation resposible for designing the Sherman to explain away the justifiable complaints of the frontline units. The Sherman was inherently more flammable than other tanks for a variety of reasons. My understanding is that this was principally due to the poor design of the engine compartment which resulted in an extremely high frequency of fuel fires when penetrated. The remedial action which was taken to redesign the ammo storage (the 'wet' storage) did help but didn't really address the fundamental problem. The Sherman remained a more dangerous vehicle to be knocked out in. The British produced interesting statistics on crew survival for knocked out tanks which clearly showed a significant difference. I think it was about 1 less crew member on average surviving from a Sherman, could even have been more.

[howardb]

-I took out the Tiger and found myself looking closely at it, searching for any signs of the exact point of penetration (I figured that I could not rule out BTS’s sense of realism, minute detail and craftmanship coding).

Funny but I did the same thing the first time I tried the game. Great men think alike I guess

[slazzari]

You guys might find this link interesting - it details all different kinds of battle damage to WWII tanks/AFV's :

tank damage in WWII

[Los]

"What’s the approximate size of the interior that flakes of and kills the crew if the

shot is fired from 100 meters?"

It's called spalding and here is what it looks like from the inside:http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/ga/bd/t2-3.htm Those little flakes or bits come off, often molten hot and basically kill crewmen inside sort of as if a grenade had gone off.

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 11-30-99).]

[howardb]

Excellent site Slazzari, never seen that one before

[Guest phoenix]

Actually, isn't it called "spalling".

[Darryl]

Hi Guys,

Don't forget probably the single most important reason the Sherman burned more easily than say the German, or Russian tanks, was because it used gasoline engines, instead of Diesel power. The Sherman powerplants were quite interesting, initially using an engine made from a series of Chrysler "L" head inline 6 cylinder engines arranged in a radial pattern around a common crankshaft.

The later Shemans used a radial aircraft engine. Always seemed odd to me.

------------------

Darryl

[Guest Stabsfeldwebel]

Most interesting pic of the bunch was the Sherman V crab that had been knocked out, and then used for target practice by panzerfausts, amazing how dang small the holes were, but each one was a complete pentration.