17 pdr AT Gun?

[greycat]

I'm playing 'Sticking it Out' as the Canadians and one of my 17pdrs is engaging a Panther Ausf G at about 800m. The Panther has been hit at least ten times (front armour) but is still firing back, apparently unscathed - the shots just bounce off! Does anyone know if this is realistic - I thought the 17 pdr was supposed to be able to defeat most German tanks?:confused:

[Michael Emrys]

I thought the 17 pdr was supposed to be able to defeat most German tanks?:confused:

It did...firing APDS. Your gun might be firing something a bit less lively though.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

It sounds like you've been a bit unlucky. The 17 pdr will struggle to penetrate the front hull, but it should be able to blow through the front turret.

[greycat]

It did...firing APDS. Your gun might be firing something a bit less lively though.

Michael

It only had one round of APDS which it has fired - it seemed not to bounce off but the tank is still shooting back! Maybe at 800m it's just too far away? (I don't know if such things as 'partial penetration' or 'armour flaking' are modelled as they were in the original game.):confused:

Andrew

[Vanir Ausf B]

(I don't know if such things as 'partial penetration' or 'armour flaking' are modelled as they were in the original game.):confused:

Andrew

Yes they are.

[dieseltaylor]

The War Office carried out trials for first shot kills on all the German tanks and effectively front on this did not happen with Panthers at all using APCBC or AP. There was no APDS in this 1943 test.

WW2 hit probability figures

Source: PRO document WO291/171, OR report on effectiveness of British anti-tank guns, 1943.

"Comments and corrections" from J D Salt

The tables above are extracted from a set of polar diagrams plotted to show the 30%, 50% and 90% contours for the chance of success from all angles around the target vehicle. The tables therefore omit much of the information in the original diagrams, which was calculated using 15º intervals from head-on (0º) to rear-on (180º). There is a noticeable tendency for many of the polar plots to form "clover-leaves", and these are especially clear on the Panther and Tiger.

The original document emphatically stresses the approximate nature of these results, and cautions that they should be treated as comparative rather than absolute figures. It details the definitions used, simplifying assumptions made, and in some cases assesses the distortion these may cause.

"Chance of success", as used here, means the probability of hitting and killing with a single shot.

There is assumed to be a systematic error of 35 yards in range and zero in line. The gun layer is assumed to lay with the same accuracy as the 90% zone of the gun. This will tend to overestimate effectiveness at long range. All targets are assumed to be static.

The damage criterion for a kill is taken to be complete perforation of the armoured box, through which the whole length of the projectile passes. All tank components outside the armoured box, such as running gear, are ignored. Behind-armour effects are ignored, although it is noted that tanks are very unlikely to survive penetrations by projectiles of 6-pdr size and greater.

Shots that strike the target are assumed to be uniformly, not normally, distributed over the target areas presented. This may tend to overestimate the amount of "invulnerable" side-armour presented in fine front quarter shots, and neglects the possibility of the gunner choosing to aim at a specific vulnerable point on the target tank.

Hull-down targets have been treated as being bounded below by the turret

ring. Armour quality has been treated as falling into three categories. German machineable-quality (MQ) armour on the Panther and Tiger has been treated as equivalent to British MQ. The MQ armour on the Panzer III and Panzer IV has been treated as equivalent to a 10% greater thickness of British MQ.

The face-hardened (FH) plate has been taken as having a critical impact velocity for penetration 500 feet per second greater than British MQ with respect to AP projectiles, 200 feet per second greater with respect to APCBC. The first assumption is regarded as reasonable; the second as rough, possibly tending to overestimate the German armour; and the final assumption is thought to be very doubtful. The original document does not state whether the Panzer III and IV targets were considered to be

using Schürzen.

It is hard to see how some diagrams, for example that for the 17 pounder vs Panther, can show a better performance from some aspects against a hull-down target than a fully exposed one."

I disagree with JD on the last paragraph as the turret is more likely to give a kill rather than the glacis.

As to a Panther standing still for several hits by a 17pdr that is unusual as it would well know that a turret or track hit would probably be fatal. The WO figures are purely first round/hit kills andtherefore do not provide much guidance on 10 hits on a Panther.

[dieseltaylor]

17 pdr APCBC on Panther

Exposure .....Success % .....0º ....45º ....90º ....135º ......180º

Full view ...........90 % .......- .......- .....1200 .....1250 .....1200

.......................50 % ......50 ....1750 ...2350 .....2350 .....2250

.......................30 % .....100... 2550 ...2900 .....2850..... 2850

Hull down .........90 % ......- .....- ..........400 .......500 ......450

.......................50 % .....300 ....550 ....1100..... 1200 ....1100

[greycat]

As to a Panther standing still for several hits by a 17pdr that is unusual as it would well know that a turret or track hit would probably be fatal. The WO figures are purely first round/hit kills andtherefore do not provide much guidance on 10 hits on a Panther.

Agreed, a tank remaining stationary while being hit many times is highly unrealistic. However, some of the hits were definitely on the turret/mantlet and it's not the first time I have seen this sort of thing happen.

Thanks for all the great feedback from everybody - I'm always impressed by the amount of expertise available in this forum!

[Placebo]

Panthers seem to be able to take a lot of punishement and keep firing, I had 1 panther with at least 3 partial or full side penetrations and it was still going despite crew and equip damage!

They can be really rugged, a very different to the sherman "tommy cooker" experience.

[siffo998]

Agreed, a tank remaining stationary while being hit many times is highly unrealistic. However, some of the hits were definitely on the turret/mantlet and it's not the first time I have seen this sort of thing happen.

Thanks for all the great feedback from everybody - I'm always impressed by the amount of expertise available in this forum!

well iam playing the same scenario h2h as the canadians and one of my 17 pounder took out 2 panthers at 800m range (1 x turret = penetration, 1x mantlet hit = partial penetration, + 1 x frontal hull armor hit = riochet without penetration or spalling). so i think its definitely possible you simply had very bad luck.

[dieseltaylor]

Crew conduct seems broken. I killed two crew members of a Sherman, the TC standing in the turret , and then another who stuck his head out of the turret, and during this minute the tank kept firing and nailed an 88mm.

So we have the physical impossibility of firing with two dead bodies in the turret and the morale effect apparently of no effect. It wa version 1.01 but I have seen nothing suggesting it has been changed - though possibly ....

[wokelly]

Panthers seem to be able to take a lot of punishement and keep firing, I had 1 panther with at least 3 partial or full side penetrations and it was still going despite crew and equip damage!

They can be really rugged, a very different to the sherman "tommy cooker" experience.

I also have found the Panther to be somewhat hard to kill with penetrations. For starters it is a nightmere to kill with the PIAT even with penetrations. I have one that took penetrating hits 3-4 times from the rear and not die. The PIAT round was not the best thing but it was a large round (almost 90mm) and should be fairly lethal once it penetrations, at least similar to the Panzershrek in post-penetration lethality (both rounds are roughly the same size).

Even with tank rounds I find the Panther is hard. In one Scottish corridor mission, one veteran mission has me facing two panthers with Churchills. I was able to flank them both, but the 75mm even with side and rear penetrations took 2-4 shots on average to bring down.

In the mission described above the 17 pdr seemed reasonably lethal, the hull is generally impervious but the mantlet is the weak spot frontally. The British did some examinations of KOed panthers and did not find one with a penetrated frontal hull except for a lucky 6pdr round to the hull MG port. The concluded all future British tanks should have similar frontal hulls (angle and thickness).

On the other hand I have seen several Normandy pictures of Panthers with holed Glacis plates so it certainly did happen, but was probably armour quality issues.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Crew motivation is always a big factor in bailing out, I've found. The higher it is, the less likely they are to bail.

[Killkess]

On the other hand I have seen several Normandy pictures of Panthers with holed Glacis plates so it certainly did happen, but was probably armour quality issues.

Do you mind to share these pictures?

[beatmasta]

I'm playing the same scenario and I took one panther out with first shot from about 800m

[wokelly]

Off the top of my head:

Apperently Panzer Lehr. Side armour is smashed which looks like poor quality, nothing the Allies had was quite that big and a naval shell would have annihilated the tank.

Staged photo but a KOed panther during Epsom with a hole in the front.

Few others scattered about, they were rare but happened. In reality nothing the Allies had should have theoretically been able to penetrate the glacis plate.

[Amizaur]

There is a possibillity, that a scenario designer set a high or very high "motivation" for crews of than "resistant" Panthers - probably not realising, that this parameter can have a big (too big?) impact on their tendency to stay and continue to (effectively) fight in their tanks despite getting numerous penetrations and even some crew casualities.

Would be interesting to load the scenario you are playing (after finishing it first) to editor and check morale of that heroic Panther crew.

edit: I have checked this for you. In the scenario (Sticking it out) almost whole German force (including tank crews) have Extreme motivation, Canadian tank crews have Normal motivation.

Well, there was something extreme in motivation of some of German troops and crews at this stage of was (SS troops especially), but it was rarely expressed as a will to die with their damaged tank that is being penetrated over and over.

Such heroic behaviour did happen sometimes, but usually when the penetrations were only light or moderately heavy (no gore casualities, no heavy smoke or shock) and - what is most important - they happened when despite some wounds or some damage - they STILL FELT CONFIDENT IN THEIR TANK and IN THE BATTLE - that believed the penetration was accidental, that they can still RELATIVELY safe (not going to die in seconds from next one), are able to fight effectively, that they are supported by other own tanks or troops.

When penetrated from surprise, not knowing what the hell is happening, when hevy or gore casualties happened, when tank was not functioning anyway, when there was heavy smoke inside, and - what's most important - when they felt in danger of next penetrations in seconds (the next round is likely to arrive as soon, as the enemy reloades it's gun - and just as likely to penetrate) - then based on numerous memoirs - even SS crews evacuated the tank as quickly as they could to save lives in such situations !

After all, if they only survived, they could get another tank, experienced crews were much more valuable for Germans than a Panther or even a Tiger. They didn't like to lose vehicles, but they abandoned them when they had to - to save life and fight another day in another tank.

So maybe te motivation should have little less influence on probability of abandonin a penetrated tank.

As others have said, I think for the Panther it would be strange to not withdraw or change position when being hit multiple times by such powerfull AT rounds. To just stand there shooting, while being bombarded. Well, maybe their engine died for a moment .

I also think that for the AT-gun crew it would be unusual not to try aiming for the turret, ar at least a little bit higher, after so many ineffective hits on glacis. It is entirely possible, if they were under extreme stress, or if they couldn't see their tracers and could not observe hits on the Panther. Then, yes, they would just reload and shoot hoping they are hitting it.

The gunner of the 17pd could not be able to see the tracer or maybe even not be able to observe the hits - but the gun commander definitely should see at least the hits and order a range correction...? I think...?

Knowing that they are bouncing from the target's hull multiple times, I believe they would try to hit smaller target they CAN penetrate (the turret) than just continue to aim center of mass hitting the target every time, but ineffectively...

We all have seen tight groups of ineffective hits on fronts of King Tigers, but they were at best 3-4 shots, not 10 !

In stress you can try something mindlessly a few times, but the reflection that "it's useless!" have to came sooner or later...

Maybe after 2-3 ineffective shots, the computer "gunner" should try to change it's aimpoint a bit, just like they do now, when they are hitting a tree on the way ?? Try to aim a bit higher, a bit lower...

Anyway I believe that in most cases - if not aimed very carefully or by a cyborg - every shot is a little different. At long range, because of shell dispersion. At closer range, because of aiming quickly in the stress of battle, or because of deliberate change of the aiming point.

Maybe the computer "gunner" should not be just as precise on closer range (like under 500m) that on long range ? On long range you _have to_ take your time and aim with maximum precission (even if it costs few seconds more) to maximise your chances to hit. On shorter range, very precise aiming would be considered a waste of time, I think, if time is any factor in that engagement...

Could anyone with good knowledge ot the game say: if an allied tank or allied gun fired multiple times from a distance of 50m to a King Tiger tank, would they every time aim precisely the same point and hit over and over virtually the same place ?

And if that place the shot are hitting happens to be a center of the KTs front hull (because of geometry), then they are just hopeless ? Even if they have a weapon that is capable penetrating front turret or lower hull ? They would just continue to aim for the center of mass ? Same situation for a 76mm/6pd vs Panther ?

[greycat]

It's a 'hot-seat' game and my opponent won't be back for a while; it's possible that the Panther's engine may have been damaged but the cannon and MG are still working! If both the AT gun and the target are both stationary then it may be that the shots keep hitting exactly the same spot; as you say, this would not be likely in practice.

In a recent single player game of 'The Crossroads at Monthardrou' a Panther appeared on my flank and was engaged by a group of four Shermans (both 75mm and 76mm guns.) An early hit appeared to disable the main gun but the MG was still working after 20+ hits! :mad:(The crew must all have had severe headaches at the very least!) After about 3 turns of this I gave up - I cannot believe that this is realistic!

[Lee_Vincent]

I had a crack Stug hit an Achilles with 5 full penetrations at point blank range and the Achilles then KO'd the Stug...maybe some passed right through?

[dieseltaylor]

Definitely seems wrong. Standard drill was if you were hit you bailed as the next shot would do you. Shermans being particularly bloody in lost crew.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Could anyone with good knowledge ot the game say: if an allied tank or allied gun fired multiple times from a distance of 50m to a King Tiger tank, would they every time aim precisely the same point and hit over and over virtually the same place ?

And if that place the shot are hitting happens to be a center of the KTs front hull (because of geometry), then they are just hopeless ? Even if they have a weapon that is capable penetrating front turret or lower hull ? They would just continue to aim for the center of mass ? Same situation for a 76mm/6pd vs Panther ?

There is no aiming at particular spots on a tank in CM. Gun crews will always fire at center of mass.

[Medex]

In a recent single player game of 'The Crossroads at Monthardrou' a Panther appeared on my flank.

I checked this one out in the editor and the motivation is very high on the Panthers. Looks like if these settings are too high then the crew will hang out in the tank for awhile.

This motivation setting creates Kamikaze tank crews. I imagine the subsystems are eventually destroyed after so many penetrations. Which will render it useless even if its somewhat functional. But having your armour constantly shooting at these tanks is annoying, time wasting and ammo wasting.

[Amizaur]

There is no aiming at particular spots on a tank in CM. Gun crews will always fire at center of mass.

So... if both tanks are stationary and on close range, then every shot would hit practically the same place on target armor - over and over ? If the place happens to be the strongest part of the armor, then penetration is impossible untill position is changed ?

Edit: Just checked it, putting 3 immobilised Fireflys agains 3 immobilised King Tigers at ranges of about 50-100m.

After one round there were hits on lower hull, upper hull and turret. Many marginal penetrations of lower hull and many clean penetrations of turret front and weapon mount. The German crews just sit (short cover arcs) and do nothing. After 10 penetrations of KT so far, there was in total one casuality (front lower hull penetration, the driver killed, this crew bailed out), the remaining two KTs got about 4 penetrations each (of lower hull and front turret), they still have full crews and no damage.

I saw that the Fireflys DO CHANGE the aiming point before each shot. It's very visible at such close range. For example, at first the Firefly is aiming rather low and little to the left from the center of mass, and before next shot it raises the barrel and move it bit to the right and so on. Unfortunately, the moves are very fast (the hand-cranked move in elevation also is quick) and the shot happens split of a second after barrel is rapidly raised or lowered. Doesn't look like WW2 tank action... Rather like some Vulcan/Phalanx or another computer-aimed cannon acquiring and engaging it's target .

What is interesting, if I set two Fireflys close each other, agains one KT, both Fireflys are executing the same pattern of aiming - every "salvo" they both hits the same armor plate. First both Fireflys hits the lower hull, then both corrects up and to the right and hits upper hull, then both again moves barrels down and hits lower hull, then both aims higher and to the right and hits front turret and so on. The aiming (or moving the aiming point) pattern/algorithm is not random, is same for two tanks in same situation .

I'm glad there is a variable aiming point in the game ! It's somewhat random (not chosen smartly, just one shot lower, next shot higher, next lower again and so on) but at least there is some variability and that is very good thing .

[Amizaur]

Eventually all the KT were knocked out, and guess what one of German crews did after jumping out of their tank .

Three of them started to crawl for cover, but two dropped prone and opened fire with their pistols against the Sherman Firefly 50m away, probably trying to kill it's unbuttoned TC in revenge . They ignored bullets from Sherman's hull MG and continued to shoot untill Sherman's TC have buttoned, only then turned back and crawled for cover .

[Vanir Ausf B]

That's interesting. I never tried testing at that short of a range. The reason I said they always aim for center of mass is because that is what BFC has said they do. Maybe they tweaked it in one of the patches.