siffo998 Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 I'm not seeing a Pz IV with a 50mm thick glacis plate on that page. Are you sure you're not looking at the Pz III? sorry maybe i`ve used the wrong words. i was not saying that its a panzer IV with a 50 mm glacis plate but with a 50mm front armor (old version without the upgrade to 80mm) so this diagram can be pretty obsolte when it comes to version H. the thickness of the glacis in the diagram is 22mm... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 OK, I see what you mean. The Pz IV in the Lone Sentry diagram is a Ausf F2 or early G, which my source has with a 25mm glacis plate. So right now we have different sources giving different values. But with the differences being only a few millimeters it's possible there could have been variation in vehicles made by different factories or manufacturers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 OK, I see what you mean. The Pz IV in the Lone Sentry diagram is a Ausf F2 or early G, which my source has with a 25mm glacis plate. So right now we have different sources giving different values. But with the differences being only a few millimeters it's possible there could have been variation in vehicles made by different factories or manufacturers. yes thats true... but given the fact that those variations caused a weak spot or not in real life is a different story. after all you showed with your calculations that this few milimetres can cause either a penetration or not! i`ve just setup a different test using cmfi. setup: this time wanted controlled conditions so i setup 5 lanes (1000m+/- distance). again five Panzer IV H early against 5 sherman m4a1 (mid). each pair of tanks in a own lank (elevated ground + huge stone wall so that the other tanks could not spot the pair in the lane nearby). this time i wanted to see how a showdown between a panzer IV and sherman turns out at a range were the panzerIV should be clearly superior. (over 800-900m where it could bring its superior weapon to action but not at around 1500m were the shermans upper frontal armor becomes impervious. i`ve even used only the same grass type for the whole scenario so that it would not influence the spotting abitlities of the tanks. (controlled conditions) ---------------------------- results: after 12 rounds: Shermans destroyed: 33 Panzer IVs destroyed: 32 -------------------------------- my two cents: well doesnt seem like a real superiority to me. it`s pretty much the same if you are in a sherman or panzerIV right now. i`ve seen multiple cases were a upper frontal hull penetration caused the rout or direct destruction of a panzer IV. so maybe if you cancel out those 3-4 cases you would really get a statistical superiority of the panzer IV in its "sweet range". charles mentioned in his post that there are situations when it is better to be in a panzer IV and other situations were its better to be in a sherman. i will test it out at 300m later and we will see if the sherman is really the superior tank in close quaters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Krupp would mill the armour, there would be variations with each fabrication. The army inspectors would reject plates with less than the required value but pass the plates that were of greater thickness. Ergo you get Panther's and PIV's with 85mm glacis plates when the design specs ask for 80mm. In CMAK and CMBB, BTS could not give individual vehicle variations so all Tigers had 101mm and all Panther's would have 83mm of armour. One of the points noted by Rexford aka Lorrin Bird was that the armour plate variability was only evident with the thicker plates. 3cm or 4.5cm side armour was always on spec. So having variable 2cm plates is new information. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 yes thats true... but given the fact that those variations caused a weak spot or not in real life is a different story. after all you showed with your calculations that this few milimetres can cause either a penetration or not! i`ve just setup a different test using cmfi. setup: this time wanted controlled conditions so i setup 5 lanes (1000m+/- distance). again five Panzer IV H early against 5 sherman m4a1 (mid). each pair of tanks in a own lank (elevated ground + huge stone wall so that the other tanks could not spot the pair in the lane nearby). this time i wanted to see how a showdown between a panzer IV and sherman turns out at a range were the panzerIV should be clearly superior. (over 800-900m where it could bring its superior weapon to action but not at around 1500m were the shermans upper frontal armor becomes impervious. i`ve even used only the same grass type for the whole scenario so that it would not influence the spotting abitlities of the tanks. (controlled conditions) ---------------------------- results: after 12 rounds: Shermans destroyed: 33 Panzer IVs destroyed: 32 -------------------------------- my two cents: well doesnt seem like a real superiority to me. it`s pretty much the same if you are in a sherman or panzerIV right now. i`ve seen multiple cases were a upper frontal hull penetration caused the rout or direct destruction of a panzer IV. so maybe if you cancel out those 3-4 cases you would really get a statistical superiority of the panzer IV in its "sweet range". charles mentioned in his post that there are situations when it is better to be in a panzer IV and other situations were its better to be in a sherman. i will test it out at 300m later and we will see if the sherman is really the superior tank in close quaters. correction for my test -> 13 test rounds not 12! obviously 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 Krupp would mill the armour, there would be variations with each fabrication. The army inspectors would reject plates with less than the required value but pass the plates that were of greater thickness. Ergo you get Panther's and PIV's with 85mm glacis plates when the design specs ask for 80mm. the question remains which was the minimum thickness. was it 25 at 73° than the tank is safe or was it 20 at 72° then the tank is f***** 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Hazarding a guess based on the ausf D having a 2cm thickness and designers love of round figures I would conclude the design spec for that plate was 2cm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 Hazarding a guess based on the ausf D having a 2cm thickness and designers love of round figures I would conclude the design spec for that plate was 2cm. well maybe thats it but thats not the way how it should be portayed i think. according to each figure till now theirs a difference in minimum thickness between the models. for example according to vanirs data the model G upper frontal hull should be impervious to sherman fire at 1500+ meter distance. but it isnt ingame... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 yes thats true... but given the fact that those variations caused a weak spot or not in real life is a different story. after all you showed with your calculations that this few milimetres can cause either a penetration or not! i`ve just setup a different test using cmfi. setup: this time wanted controlled conditions so i setup 5 lanes (1000m+/- distance). again five Panzer IV H early against 5 sherman m4a1 (mid). each pair of tanks in a own lank (elevated ground + huge stone wall so that the other tanks could not spot the pair in the lane nearby). this time i wanted to see how a showdown between a panzer IV and sherman turns out at a range were the panzerIV should be clearly superior. (over 800-900m where it could bring its superior weapon to action but not at around 1500m were the shermans upper frontal armor becomes impervious. i`ve even used only the same grass type for the whole scenario so that it would not influence the spotting abitlities of the tanks. (controlled conditions) ---------------------------- results: after 12 rounds: Shermans destroyed: 33 Panzer IVs destroyed: 32 -------------------------------- my two cents: well doesnt seem like a real superiority to me. it`s pretty much the same if you are in a sherman or panzerIV right now. i`ve seen multiple cases were a upper frontal hull penetration caused the rout or direct destruction of a panzer IV. so maybe if you cancel out those 3-4 cases you would really get a statistical superiority of the panzer IV in its "sweet range". charles mentioned in his post that there are situations when it is better to be in a panzer IV and other situations were its better to be in a sherman. i will test it out at 300m later and we will see if the sherman is really the superior tank in close quaters. ok heres the test for 300m range using cmfi: setup: same as above but distance is 300-400 metres. of course all crews have regular experience and no bonus or malus. ---------------------------- results: after 14 rounds: Shermans destroyed: 35 Panzer IVs destroyed: 36 -------------------------------- my two cents: still no real difference. i expected the sherman to have the total upper hand at 300m but the test result does not reflect this. maybe theirs a real difference when using m4a3 like in the test charles has commented. i will test it out too i think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 well maybe thats it but thats not the way how it should be portayed i think. according to each figure till now theirs a difference in minimum thickness between the models. for example according to vanirs data the model G upper frontal hull should be impervious to sherman fire at 1500+ meter distance. but it isnt ingame... Keep in mind that the numbers from the book I referenced are not necessarily the minimums. The authors don't say where they got the numbers from, unfortunately. It's possible those are measurements of actual tanks. That same book also gives a thickness of 85mm for the driver plate and upper nose which is almost certainly not the minimum spec given that every other source lists 80mm. maybe theirs a real difference when using m4a3 like in the test charles has commented. i will test it out too i think. Different versions of the Sherman have different hull thicknesses and slope. They also vary by armor quality. Some Shermans had cast armor hulls that should be weaker than the welded hull versions. You can tell which are cast by the rounded edges. Also, try testing the IV J at 1000m. It should win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 Different versions of the Sherman have different hull thicknesses and slope. They also vary by armor quality. Some Shermans had cast armor hulls that should be weaker than the welded hull versions. You can tell which are cast by the rounded edges. I`ve just read the manual of cmbn and cmfi and it says that the normal m4a3 is the same as the m4a1 (mid) (just with a better motor) so i think there should be no difference in testing this one clearly a difference should be the m4a3 (w)75 (different armor) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 yes thats true... but given the fact that those variations caused a weak spot or not in real life is a different story. after all you showed with your calculations that this few milimetres can cause either a penetration or not! i`ve just setup a different test using cmfi. setup: this time wanted controlled conditions so i setup 5 lanes (1000m+/- distance). again five Panzer IV H early against 5 sherman m4a1 (mid). each pair of tanks in a own lank (elevated ground + huge stone wall so that the other tanks could not spot the pair in the lane nearby). this time i wanted to see how a showdown between a panzer IV and sherman turns out at a range were the panzerIV should be clearly superior. (over 800-900m where it could bring its superior weapon to action but not at around 1500m were the shermans upper frontal armor becomes impervious. i`ve even used only the same grass type for the whole scenario so that it would not influence the spotting abitlities of the tanks. (controlled conditions) ---------------------------- results: after 12 rounds: Shermans destroyed: 33 Panzer IVs destroyed: 32 -------------------------------- This explains a lot. Optics not modeled, too... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 The glacis in the PzIV was holed with brake access panels (largest holes in the plate) and other factory-cut perforations. These were, of course, filled with hinged plates, but edge effects would come into play, as would issues regarding blowing in the access panels, and access panel thickness/resistance. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 i`ve just did some testing in graviteams apos (achtung panzer operation star)... there are early 1943 panzer IV Gs with 50mm superstructere and lower hull armor (not as the uparmored G and H ones in cm2). via after action statistics i wanted to see what andrey used as angle for the panzerIv glacis plate and if the russian t-34 are able to penetrate it. i`ve only seen one confirmed hit at the panzer IV glacis plate! the after action statistics showed that the head on hit, hit the glacis plate at 72°. which confirms the +/- 72° angling of the plate from various sources. the distance was 738,2m. the russian 76,2mm BR-350a APHE shell bounced off the glacis without doing any damage...!!!. unfortunately i do not know how to display the thickness of the plate (dont know if its even possible in the statistics.) taking into account that 75mm sherman shells are able to penetrate the glacis plate in cmbn and cmfi at 1500m distance and russian 76,2mm (with only a little bit less punch than the american 75mm according to my knowledge) are not able to penetrate it at 738,2m (a lot closer) its really strange to me. these guys over at graviteam are doing simulations for the ukrainian army and programmed ww2 games/simulations for some years now. so iam pretty sure they know what they are doing. by the way theres another thing which is pretty impressive... in apos you can really feel the superiority of the panzer IV optics and main gun against the t-34. the t-34 showed superior results in close quarters but at high ranges (starting at around 1200m using open ground) those poor t-34 did not really know what hit them until they finally returned fire at the panzer IV platoon at around 800m... its also impressive to see how excelent the fire and advance tank warfare is modeled. advancing... halt... aiming... fire... advancing... etc. (this also prevents the tanks from becoming a static target...) cm really needs a fire and advance command... and the tanks should automatically drive "zig-zag" (really useful). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 This explains a lot. Optics not modeled, too... Wrong, look at this test i ran a while back: https://sites.google.com/site/cmx2tankvtanktests/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 the russian 76,2mm BR-350a APHE shell bounced off the glacis without doing any damage...!!!. Soviet BR-350a fired at 612 m/s penetrates 61mm of FHA at 700m. Fired at 655 m/s it penetrates 68mm @ 700m. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 Soviet BR-350a fired at 612 m/s penetrates 61mm of FHA at 700m. Fired at 655 m/s it penetrates 68mm @ 700m. well that explains why it did not penetrate comparing this with your before calculated armor protection (70mm at 0°) haven`t thought that the difference would be that big between the M61 and the Soviet BR-350a what was your source for the penetration values? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 Wrong, look at this test i ran a while back: https://sites.google.com/site/cmx2tankvtanktests/ impressive test thx for sharing again! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 what was your source for the penetration values? World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery by Lorrin "Rexford" Bird and Robert D. Livingston 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 i`ve just received an answer to my request over at simhq from donken: "Depends on what gun the Sherman have. If it is the 75mm or the 76mm gun, on the paper the 76 can pen the front on the pz4 with ease at those ranges, but the 75 can not, it must get closer to 500m to be able to do that. And the upper glacis/transmission cover have a relative armor thickness of ~65mm if 20mm@72 degrees angle and the uparmored one at 25mm@72degrees have ~80mm thickness." pretty much confirms your thickness calculation vanir but it also says that the 75mm should not be able to do the penetration. i`ve asked for confirmation and sources...we will see... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 impressive test thx for sharing again! Your welcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 "Depends on what gun the Sherman have. If it is the 75mm or the 76mm gun, on the paper the 76 can pen the front on the pz4 with ease at those ranges, but the 75 can not, it must get closer to 500m to be able to do that. And the upper glacis/transmission cover have a relative armor thickness of ~65mm if 20mm@72 degrees angle and the uparmored one at 25mm@72degrees have ~80mm thickness." pretty much confirms your thickness calculation vanir but it also says that the 75mm should not be able to do the penetration. i`ve asked for confirmation and sources...we will see... Depends on ammunition. This would be true using uncapped M72 AP, which performs similarly to Soviet BR-350a (which also does not have a penetrative cap), but capped ammunition is a different story. http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=197 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 Depends on ammunition. This would be true using uncapped M72 AP, which performs similarly to Soviet BR-350a (which also does not have a penetrative cap), but capped ammunition is a different story. http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=197 thx for the link. thats a true point. are you able to calculate the penetration value from this site for the shermans m61 at 1500m 30° to 0° (according to the site its 49mm at 30°) ? i`ve seen that you`ve calculated the value for the m62 (around 74,42mm at 1500m) but shouldnt the standart be the m61 ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 To convert 30° data to 0° you multiply by 1.22 (IIRC). i`ve seen that you`ve calculated the value for the m62 (around 74,42mm at 1500m) but shouldnt the standart be the m61 ? I don't know. Should it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killkess Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 To convert 30° data to 0° you multiply by 1.22 (IIRC). I don't know. Should it? Which, following your Source, would only be true for a given T/D ratio. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.