Weapon Data?

[lordxenu]

Firstly Hello Forum!

Is there any way that the similar window can be opened that shows gun data like on the original CM games?

I have had some odd results playing quick battle's with the roqf 75mm, could it penetrate the tiger frontaly as I appear to have seen in thw game? Im sure I have seen it atleast.

Just wondering as performence of the British 75mm and the removal of the HE burster in American ammunition has been a cause of controversy in the past, certainly on this forum.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Is there any way that the similar window can be opened that shows gun data like on the original CM games?

Unfortunatly, no.

I have had some odd results playing quick battle's with the roqf 75mm, could it penetrate the tiger frontaly as I appear to have seen in thw game?

Not normally. Maybe if it hit the hull machine gun port, but I have not seen any evidence yet that weak point penetrations of that nature exist in CMBN. That's not to say they don't, just that I have never seen one.

[womble]

There are chances with some tanks of ricochets off the bottom curve of the gun mantlet going in through the "top forward" (I think that's what it calls it) armour (which is very much thinner than the glacis). Also, plunging fire can sometimes hit thinner parts. If the target is on a steepish slope, pointing downhill, it's presenting "top" armour to someone on the opposite side of the valley who has sufficient elevation.

[lordxenu]

There are chances with some tanks of ricochets off the bottom curve of the gun mantlet going in through the "top forward" (I think that's what it calls it) armour (which is very much thinner than the glacis). Also, plunging fire can sometimes hit thinner parts. If the target is on a steepish slope, pointing downhill, it's presenting "top" armour to someone on the opposite side of the valley who has sufficient elevation.

I have The Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50 by Osprey Publishing, and in the book it gives the MK5 75mm 76mm at 457m at a 30 degree's vertical compared to 75mm for the 6 pounder MK5.

According to WFO 185/118 the AP round for the 6 pounder could penetrate the Tiger Tank Frontaly and it was through the front plate, not a ricochet or a weak point. This would suggest it was possible, I certainly had a cromwell manage and destroy 2 Tiger's. If they were both ricochet's then he was very lucky.

[womble]

I have The Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50 by Osprey Publishing, and in the book it gives the MK5 75mm 76mm at 457m at a 30 degree's vertical compared to 75mm for the 6 pounder MK5.

According to WFO 185/118 the AP round for the 6 pounder could penetrate the Tiger Tank Frontaly...

It'd have to get awful lucky and hit a weak spot of some kind to get through. The front plate of the Tigger was 100mm which is rather more than 75mm: what's the penetration quoted for normal (90 deg) impact. I got the impression that historically it wasn't something to depend on, hence the advice to seek flank shots.

...and it was through the front plate, not a ricochet or a weak point. This would suggest it was possible, I certainly had a cromwell manage and destroy 2 Tiger's. If they were both ricochet's then he was very lucky.

Those ricochets don't seem to be terribly uncommon, IME. 1 in 10, maybe, for the Panther. Don't know if the Tiger even suffered from them. When you're trying to decide what a hit actually did, it's important to pay the most attention to the "hit text" rather than where the impact appears in the replay.

[lordxenu]

It'd have to get awful lucky and hit a weak spot of some kind to get through. The front plate of the Tigger was 100mm which is rather more than 75mm: what's the penetration quoted for normal (90 deg) impact. I got the impression that historically it wasn't something to depend on, hence the advice to seek flank shots.

Those ricochets don't seem to be terribly uncommon, IME. 1 in 10, maybe, for the Panther. Don't know if the Tiger even suffered from them. When you're trying to decide what a hit actually did, it's important to pay the most attention to the "hit text" rather than where the impact appears in the replay.

The Figures were from 30 degree's and like I said the 6 pounder penetrates the front plate of the tiger tank, in reality and not through a ricochet.

Seeing as this happens despite penetrating 75mm at 457m which is 1mm less than the cromwell's mk5 75mm.

Understand my point?

[lordxenu]

To explain further in the document WO 185/118 the round passes through not badly distorted. This would indicate a single hit could get through and I am simply wondering if this is modelled in the game?

[JonS]

AP != APC != APCBC != APCR != APDS

The type of round fired matters. A lot. 6-pr had an APDS round that was very effective. AFAIK, the W-Allied 75mm guns never had an APDS round. Some 6-pr AP ammn will pen 100mm, some won't.

Also, L43 != L50

The model of gun matters, although not as much as the model of ammn.

[lordxenu]

AP Steel Standard between the date's of 30th of July to August 13th.

[lordxenu]

It Was the 6 Pounder MK 2 so L43

[JonS]

There are definately combinations of gun/ammn/range that can pen the Tiger frontally without the need for a Critical Hit, and there are just as definately other combinations that can't. Similarly there are combinations of Ordnance QF 6 pounder gun/ammn/range that will acheive penetration similar to the Ordnance QF 75 mm, and other combinations that will be very different.

Therefore, statements like "75mm for the 6 pounder MK5" and "the AP round for the 6 pounder could penetrate the Tiger Tank frontally" are too unspecific to be much use, since both are true for different combinations.

[lordxenu]

There are definately combinations of gun/ammn/range that can pen the Tiger frontally without the need for a Critical Hit, and there are just as definately other combinations that can't. Similarly there are combinations of Ordnance QF 6 pounder gun/ammn/range that will acheive penetration similar to the Ordnance QF 75 mm, and other combinations that will be very different.

Therefore, statements like "75mm for the 6 pounder MK5" and "the AP round for the 6 pounder could penetrate the Tiger Tank frontally" is too unspecific to be much use.

Well they Penetrate similar amounts of armour at 30 degree's vertical at 500 and 1,000 yards. The Round used in the table for the 6 pounder is APC fired at 862 M/S.

[lordxenu]

That could be from a longer 6 pounder though, its listed as a MK5 in the book about the Cromwell By Osprey.

WO 185 118 Tests a 6 pounder MK2 with AP.

This is a clear indication of penetration and could suggest a range/Angle combination, and therefore of some obvious use to people who understand better.

I would still suggest it would strongly indicate that richochet's would not be needed, they certainly were not for the 6 pounder atleast.

Source: " Tank versus Tank", Kenneth Macksey, Guild Publishing, 1988

has a Table showing the 6 pounder L50 penetrating the Tiger frontally at 200 metres at 30 degree's so it would suggest a ballback level for penetration.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have done some testing and it appears lordxenu is correct about the in-game effects. I tested Cromwell VIIs against Tiger I lates at 100m. Partial penetrations were seen against the lower hull, upper hull superstructure and front turret (!). I then replaced the Cromwells with Sherman 75W A3 and retested. The Shermans achieved 0 penetrations and just a few armor spalling results.

I have a couple of questions. First, how the heck are penetrations getting though the front turret? The front turret of the Tiger is completely covered by the mantlet, which was 120mm thick. No way should a 75mm get through that.

Secondly, why the difference in performance between US and UK 75mm? The OQF 75mm was a bored-out 6 pdr and was slightly shorter than the US 75mm M3. As far as I am aware the British used the same ammunition as the US except the HE explosive charge was removed and replaced with an inert filler.

[lordxenu]

I have done some testing and it appears lordxenu is correct about the in-game effects. I tested Cromwell VIIs against Tiger I lates at 100m. Partial penetrations were seen against the lower hull, upper hull superstructure and front turret (!). I then replaced the Cromwells with Sherman 75W A3 and retested. The Shermans achieved 0 penetrations and just a few armor spalling results.

I have a couple of questions. First, how the heck are penetrations getting though the front turret? The front turret of the Tiger is completely covered by the mantlet, which was 120mm thick. No way should a 75mm get through that.

Secondly, why the difference in performance between US and UK 75mm? The OQF 75mm was a bored-out 6 pdr and was slightly shorter than the US 75mm M3. As far as I am aware the British used the same ammunition as the US except the HE explosive charge was removed and replaced with an inert filler.

The MK5 was made from the L50 6 pounder and The British counted the Barrell length differently than the US.

The M3's Length was 38.5 Calibre's but I believe this would include the breech instead of Just the Barrell.

The MK5 Ammunition indeed did remove the HE burster But Im not sure about any filler, The ammunition used by the America Army also weighed 14.9 lbs compared to 13.75 lbs for the British AP. (M72)

It would seem that nothing of any significant weight replaced the HE burster, this certainly should explain why the ammo should perform differently.

The round fired from the MK5 75mm would have had no HE burster and weighed less than the round fired from a M3.

Some sources give 14lbs for the M72ap shot, but the British round is still lighter.

With regards to the Tiger's mantlet not all tigers had the 120mm mantlet maybe you picked a different model?

Also the US generaly used M61 and the British Army used M72.

[Vanir Ausf B]

With regards to the Tiger's mantlet not all tigers had the 120mm mantlet maybe you picked a different model?

120mm is an average. The actual thickness varied from 90mm at the horizontal edges to 150mm around the machine gun port (the thinner edges have the turret front behind them). The only significant change in thickness over time was to the area around the sight ports. The first 130 made were only 75mm thick around the sight ports, but the thickness was increase on later builds. I tested on the "late" model. According to World War 2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery the later builds resisted at "less than 110mm". Other than that possible weak point the mantlet should be impervious to all 75mm.

"The mantlet can generally resist projectiles capable of penetrating less than 135mm, except for the weak areas between and immediately around the sight ports"

[lordxenu]

120mm is an average. The actual thickness varied from 90mm at the horizontal edges to 150mm around the machine gun port (the thinner edges have the turret front behind them). The only significant change in thickness over time was to the area around the sight ports. The first 130 made were only 75mm thick around the sight ports, but the thickness was increase on later builds. I tested on the "late" model. According to World War 2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery the later builds resisted at "less than 110mm". Other than that possible weak point the mantlet should be impervious to all 75mm.

"The mantlet can generally resist projectiles capable of penetrating less than 135mm, except for the weak areas between and immediately around the sight ports"

Thats a Fair point but the rest still stands.

[MikeyD]

Tiger gun mantlet had the same problem as the Sherman turret casting. The interior armor on both had been excavated to make room for equipment, reducing its ballistic protection. (gunner's sight mount for the Tiger, turret traverse motor for the Sheman). So the Tiger mantlet got that raised strip across the gunner's sight holes and the Sherman got that patch applied to the forward-right turret. Both changes were 'corrective'.

Armor values is very much a relative science. German big cats were known for being routinely overarmored at the factory using beyond-spec plate thickness. And I recall a report of someone inspecting a cast hull Sherman whose hullside showed evidence of someone taking a wooden plank and pounding the sand casting before pouring the steel in order to increase thickness. The cast steel preserved the wood grain of the plank!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Thats a Fair point but the rest still stands.

It stands insofar as trying to refute it is more work than it's worth. Let's just say there is a lot of conflicting data out there. For example, the book I quoted above does state that removing the HE burster cap improves penetration, but by only about 4% (and the British did use inert filler). And it lists the M72 as having better penetration than the M61 at very short ranges against unsloped armor. But without knowing exactly what ammo the game is modeling it's almost impossible to say for sure if something is wrong and by how much.

I can say with much more certainty that the Tiger is off. It's almost as if the game models the mantlet as being much smaller than it really is. I have noticed the same issue with the Panther where US 76 APC can frequently penetrate the front turret at ranges that suggest it is not striking the mantlet nearly as often as it should.

[lordxenu]

It stands insofar as trying to refute it is more work than it's worth. Let's just say there is a lot of conflicting data out there. For example, the book I quoted above does state that removing the HE burster cap improves penetration, but by only about 4% (and the British did use inert filler). And it lists the M72 as having better penetration than the M61 at very short ranges against unsloped armor. But without knowing exactly what ammo the game is modeling it's almost impossible to say for sure if something is wrong and by how much.

I can say with much more certainty that the Tiger is off. It's almost as if the game models the mantlet as being much smaller than it really is. I have noticed the same issue with the Panther where US 76 APC can frequently penetrate the front turret at ranges that suggest it is not striking the mantlet nearly as often as it should.

The inert Filler still meant the weight of the round was reduced though, M72 had better penetration than m61 against RHA at all ranges and angle's. In every table I have seen anyway M72 at 500 yards at a 30 degree angle has a significant advantage over m61.

Also the HE burster caused failure's in penetration against vehicles with spaced armour.

You have a fair point about not knowing which round the game is using, but you cannot refute the information because its correct.

M72 AP without the HE Burster according to Bovington Tank museum can penetrate 114mm of armour at 100 yards and 103mm at 500 yards, M72 ap with the HE burster penetrates 101mm at 100 yards.

This would impy it is more in the region of 10% but Even a 4% improvement would mean that m72 at a narrow angle should not need more than one solid hit against parts of the Tiger to pentrate.

With regards to this even with conflicting data there is nothing to refute, the MK 5 in one test got 76mm at 500 yards at a 30 degree angle of impact where as the M72 from a M3 with HE Burster gets 70mm. (again the 6 Pounder with APC penetrated 75mm and we know this definatly could knock the tiger out with one hit at short ranges with standard ammo.)

[Vanir Ausf B]

You have a fair point about not knowing which round the game is using, but you cannot refute the information because its correct.

I've already stated that I'm not interested in debating the exact numbers regarding the US and UK ammo since I'm not particularly bothered by the in-game results except as they related to the Tiger turret, which is clearly not correct IMO.

But in light of your certitude I am now curious about something else. Why did you register on the forum and start this thread to ask a question that you already knew the answer to?

[Amizaur]

(again the 6 Pounder with APC penetrated 75mm and we know this definatly could knock the tiger out with one hit at short ranges with standard ammo.)

Do you mean - knock out trough the 100mm+ frontal armour ? Or knock it down at all (trough side or rear armor) ?

[sburke]

But in light of your certitude I am now curious about something else. Why did you register on the forum and start this thread to ask a question that you already knew the answer to?

Why to use that login ID of course!! It is dang funny, but he's probably gonna have Tom Cruise banging on his door next telling him to come out of the closet.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155090/tom-cruise-wont-come-out-of-the-closet