M10 GMC for QBs and editor?

[akd]

That is not the same Tiger.

[John Kettler]

akd,

I just did, and I couldn't help but note the first strike "on the upper side" was reported as being at a "very acute angle, which to me suggests the tank, at that distance at least, was almost directly facing the gun, thus would have the greatest effective thickness. Evidently the Tiger turned progressively away from the gun, accounting for the scalloping and gouging reported. Whether it turned away because the buttoning fire from the MGs confused, disoriented or scared the TC, or because other 6-pdrs, and I'm sure there were some, else "gunners" wouldn't have been used, each ATG having one gunner, opened fire as well, likely from several axes, is not detailed.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

akd,

I am perfectly aware that two different combat actions are represented in the accounts, at two different locations and that one is ATGs vs. Tank, while the other is tank vs. tank.

In any event, the real issue is 6 pdr performance against the Tiger 1.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

John,

The first complete penetration was at a range of 800 yards, at an angle of impact of 30 degrees from normal, through homogeneous armor 82-mm (approximately 3 1/3 inches) thick.

What part of the Tiger's armor is 82mm thick?

[akd]

http://www.lonesentry.com/blog/tiger-armor-thickness.html

[JonS]

other 6-pdrs, and I'm sure there were some, else "gunners" wouldn't have been used, each ATG having one gunner

What is the collective noun for members of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, again?

[John Kettler]

JonS,

You may be right about that collective noun, but in the context, had it been but one crew involved, the likely choice of words would've been "gun crew." You know, and I know, the British, even at the debut of the 6-pdr at Gazala, used these ATGs en masse, not in penny packets. With Tigers prowling about in Tunisia, such tendencies would no doubt be reinforced. It makes no sense for the British to post one gun and expect it to fight a Tiger. Therefore, logic led me to the reasonable conclusion there had to be multiple guns, which meant that "gunners" referred to the one man on each 6-pdr so designated, the British being sticklers for rigid naming of the other members of gun crews for hundreds of years. I know, for I've seen both the land warfare and naval manuals of arms proving this.

(hunts a bit)

This isn't quite what I wanted, but I believe I now know what "semi-AP" was. It was what we called HVAP/APCR or "T" in the game, and that was the weapon's primary antitank ammunition until APDS became available in 1944. Very good account of the weapon here.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=469

This quotes penetration for that ammo as 90mm at 1000 meters, which makes things rather iffy for the Tiger as the tank closes range, even bow on.

http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/equipartillery.htm

Since everything seems to be on the Internet, I confess myself baffled as to why I've so far been unable to locate a list of the crew positions and duties on this ATG.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

logic led me

Logic? You?

pffft

[Michael Emrys]

...I believe I now know what "semi-AP" was.

I have no reason to doubt your description, given the context, but the usage of your source could lead to confusion. In naval artillery, the term refers to a shell intermediate between high capacity with a thin shell and packing a lot of explosive and full armor piercing, which is mostly steel shell with a fairly small charge. No idea what percentage of shell production was devoted to semi-armor piercing under this definition.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

This isn't quite what I wanted, but I believe I now know what "semi-AP" was. It was what we called HVAP/APCR or "T" in the game, and that was the weapon's primary antitank ammunition until APDS became available in 1944.

I don't think so. From what I have read APCR did not become available until October of 1943 at the earliest.

The question isn't can the 57mm penetrate the Tiger frontally. It can through the hull at short to medium ranges, and sometimes through the turret in its presently slightly-gimped condition. The issue is that in the base game it is only available as a towed AT gun. That is fine on the defense but it will be a challenge to use them offensively, or try the old smoke-and-flank with your Shermans.

[JonS]

That's kind of the problem with a strictly tactical game that has no native awareness of the operational level. In reality, there was the princly total of 17 Tigers on Sicily on 10 July, and something like half that many just 2 or 3 days later. But in practice, in CMFI, there is always an infinite supply of Tigers available to the German player, when actually they only had 17, and most of those destroyed themselves rather than being destroyed by the Allied armies directly.

On the upside, though, there's always an infinite supply of Shermans and Cruisers available too, no matter how from the coast you think you are

It's up to players (and editors) to provide the operational level awareness, and to vary and adjust their forces to produce interesting and fun battles. I saw a post the other day by a fellow who always takes Jagdpanthers in QBs. Well, screw that guy. That's not varied, interesting, or fun.

[MikeyD]

I recall reading a report of a Tiger commander in Tunisia complaining bitterly about the allies willingness to rain HE down on him incessantly from max range as though ammo expenditure was never an issue for them. Soon things on his 'impenetrable' tank would start breaking. Wheels, optics, fittings, turret drive. It was like a heavyweight fight where you couldn't KO your opponent but you could punish him mercilessly with a rain of body blows. It doesn't really take much luck to make an opposing Tiger 'operationally ineffective' in a scenario. As long as you're provided with a broad assortment of tools for the job, that is.

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Having worked with my brother Ed on the game module Steel Typhoon for the second half of the naval war in the Pacific last year (naval miniatures), I think the ammo type to which you refer is "common," being neither high capacity nor true AP. Common has some ability to penetrate, nothing like true AP for whatever gun fires it, but it carries more explosive punch. In a word it is semi armor piercing and is the standard naval shell.

The use of semi-AP as the ammo description certainly muddies the grog waters. Contrariwise, the British, whatever they fired to kill tanks, ALWAYS fired shot of some sort. This poses a conundrum. I thought I got it right, but Vanir Ausf B has thrown a spanner in the works, for there was evidently no "T" in service when the Tiger got killed by the 6 pdrs. So for CMFI purposes we need to know what the AP projectile was right before "T" came into service. It turns out to be APCBC, whose performance is 88 mm at 1000 meters, per the same source for the APCR numbers. A whole new projectile for a measly 2mm penetration improvement. Hardly seems worth the bother. My guess? The "T" was much better at penetrating face hardened armor than was the APCBC.

JonS,

You're late to the discussion! I've already pointed this out to Vanir Ausf B.

MikeyD,

Even little things can smart. I once got a 1000 meter M-Kill in CMAK on a Tiger I with a burst of 40mm AA broadside into its running gear as it crossed a railroad embankment. Unfortunately, it immobilized right where it had good LOS to its tormentor. I tried desperately to drive the crew out by raining fire on the tank, but the 88 spoke and spoke again. The second shot took out my dug-in gun. And that was the end of an amazing duel. As for the Tiger commander in Tunisia, if he was up against 25 pdrs, he must've been tearing his hair out, given their enormous rate of fire. Death of a thousand cuts!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Glukx Ouglouk]

So for CMFI purposes we need to know what the AP projectile was right before "T" came into service. It turns out to be APCBC, whose performance is 88 mm at 1000 meters, per the same source for the APCR numbers. A whole new projectile for a measly 2mm penetration improvement. Hardly seems worth the bother. My guess? The "T" was much better at penetrating face hardened armor than was the APCBC.

A measly 2 mm at 1000 m probably means a lot more at closer ranges : since APCR/HVAP rounds are lighter than regular AP rounds, they tend to have poorer long range ballistics.

edit: I have seen different figure on this site (quoted from "6pdr Handbook, Cromwell Handbook, AVIA 46 187, WO 185/178, DEFE 15 180"). For MQ armour (it's RHA, not face-hardened) at 30°, they give the following figures:

APCBC:

- 86 mm at 500 yards

- 80 mm at 1000 yards (-7% compared to the penetration at 500 yards)

- 68 mm at 2000 yards (-21%)

APCR:

- 109 mm at 500 yards

- 90 mm at 1000 yards (-17%)

- 75 mm at 2000 yards (-31%)

I don't know how comparable those figure are, but what is interesting is that we do see the penetration figure dropping more quickly with distance with APCR ammo compared to APCBC ammo.

[John Kettler]

Glukx Ouglouk,

Welcome aboard!

Excellent point, since "T" is going much faster than the other AP shot types, except APDS, as the range closes. Unfortunately, I have data only for 1000 meters for the various shot types. Had I been more alert, I would've picked on that aspect while posting, but I'm worn out from a yet to be finished move.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Glukx Ouglouk,

Look what I found on that same site! This thing generates the same sort of penetration charts that CMx1 had, albeit with certain limitations. http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/ For the APCBC vs. the Tiger I, it looks like penetration is simply impossible down to 250 meters, at which point it's iffy all the way to zero.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Glukx Ouglouk]

Wow, that's a nice tool!

You do have to be careful with that sort of tool though, since it uses ballistic formulas to calculate the penetration rather than real world data: it's only a model, and it can be more or less (in)accurate depending on which real-world factors are or aren't taken into account (not to mention completely unpredictable circumstances, like a defective armor plate). But it can probably give a reasonable idea of a given gun/ammo combo capabilities, and the diagrams are just neat!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Note the difference with 57mm AP. I wonder which will be used in CMFI?

[John Kettler]

Glukx Ouglouk, Vanir Ausf B,

The Penetration Calculator also has a most interesting Advanced Mode, in which you can, for example, change armor types on a given tank. Want to see how a Sherman with face hardened armor might work against a specific threat? You can do that. I believe it allows for three different armor types and hitting specific plates on the target tank. Covers four countries. Unfortunately, it doesn't cover MG fire vs. light armor.

Regards,

John Kettler