Panzer IV H frontal hull armor seems wrong (test inside) BFC please take a look!

[noob]

first thx for the effort of testing noob!

but the question is not if the panzerIV should be superior... the main question was: should the shermans75mm (using standard ammunition) should be able to penetrate the transmission cover at 1500m. and out of this question came another one: is the sherman 75mm ingame using the right ammo for the timeframe or are penetration values ingame wrong ?

my main test was a one on one showdown in controlled conditions.

your test is a platoon vs platoon or group vs. group test ->

i think there are too many variables to clearly say anything about the performance of one tank or another...

I was responding to this statement, which is incorrect for groups of tanks at 1500m.

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.

[siffo998]

Given the assumed (as stated above) use of M61a1 ammunition, is the penetration performance in CMBN approximately correct?

well when using your source

"3.4 inch (86,5mm) of face hardened armour @0 degrees at 1000 yards"

it should be right.

vanirs sources show similar results:

Rexford's book lists US APCBC penetration against FHA @ 0° as:

500m: 95mm

1000m: 86mm

1500: 79mm

Those ranges are in yards. Multiplied by 1.27 to convert to 0° we get penetration of:

500m: 100mm

1000m: 90mm

1500m: 80.6mm

(has somebody tested the performance of a sherman 75mm shell against a tiger at close range? because according to this data the 75mm m61a1 should eventually be able to partial penetrate/penetrate the tigers superstructere hull (102mm at somewhat 10°) if closer than 100m distance... which explains the armor spalling of the frontal turret hit in the initial post of this thread...)

still the question remains if the m61a1 was used at all in larger numbers in the cmbn timeframe.

and like vanir already said... theres another question:

was the m61a1 already used in the cmfi timeframe? because according to my test the panzerIV hull shows just the same perfromance as in the cmbn timeframe which indicates that cmfi uses the same penetration values for the 75mm as cmbn.

[Vanir Ausf B]

(has somebody tested the performance of a sherman 75mm shell against a tiger at close range? because according to this data the 75mm m61a1 should eventually be able to partial penetrate/penetrate the tigers superstructere hull (102mm at somewhat 10°) if closer than 100m distance...)

Keep in mind that the Tiger is RHA.

[siffo998]

Keep in mind that the Tiger is RHA.

oh yeah sorry... you are right...

by the way i would totally second your suggestion that the frontal upper hull armor (transmission cover) of the pzIV should be increased to 22mm (or even 25 for the G versions)

[noob]

I did a 1 v 1 test under the same conditions as my previous tests, and the PzIV won 12 out of 20 rounds, with one tie, the Sherman won 7 rounds (a win was when the enemy tank was either destroyed or retreated, the Sherman was more likely to get destroyed when losing, the PzIV was more likely to dismount or retreat when losing).

Therefore, based on all the tests i ran, 15 v 15, 5 v 5 and 1 v 1, i'd rather be in a PzIVH early than a M4A1 Sherman mid at 1500m on a clear windless day at high noon, and even if the PzIV upper front hull was tweaked, i don't think it would make any noticeable difference to the outcomes of the tests i have made, so unless the outcomes for different versions of the PzIV against the same tank differ drastically, i don't think it's an issue that needs fixing, and even if it was fixed, i can't see how anyone would notice in a head to head clash if they had the penetration text turned off.

[siffo998]

and even if the PzIV upper front hull was tweaked, i don't think it would make any noticeable difference to the outcomes of the tests i have made, so unless the outcomes for different versions of the PzIV against the same tank differ drastically, i don't think it's an issue that needs fixing, and even if it was fixed, i can't see how anyone would notice in a head to head clash if they had the penetration text turned off.

i ran 13 and 14 test rounds à 5 tanks = 65 and 70 single tests and even that is a rather small sample size. i havent counted retreating tanks as losses only clear destructions or knocked out, abondened tanks... in some cases for example the sherman retreated behind a smoke screen and after the smoke lit again it destroyed the panzer IV.

i experienced at least 3 confirmed cases during testing were a upper frontal hull penetration at 1500m leads to destruction or panic inside the tank... so i think it will make a difference at least in some special situations.

by the way i assumed cm is a combat simulation... and things like: "no one will notice" should not be the standard for a combat simulation...

for example: i would be really pissed if my panzerIv gets screwed after an upper frontal hull hit at 1500m when i know that this should not really be possible.

[noob]

i ran 13 and 14 test rounds à 5 tanks = 65 and 70 single tests and even that is a rather small sample size. i havent counted retreating tanks as losses only clear destructions or knocked out, abondened tanks... in some cases for example the sherman retreated behind a smoke screen and after the smoke lit again it destroyed the panzer IV.

There's the rub, i regard a retreat as a win, because, in a game, area denial is a factor, so if a single PzIV achieves an overwatch over vital terrain after forcing a Sherman' to retreat, the Sherman is at a disadvantage if it tries to move back into LOS, this is augmented the more PzIV's there are, unless the Sherman's achieve at least a 2 to 1 numerical advantage, and if the action is at 1500m of course.

i experienced at least 3 confirmed cases during testing were a upper frontal hull penetration at 1500m leads to destruction or panic inside the tank... so i think it will make a difference at least in some special situations.

Firstly, three out of ? tests, if it's 65 to 70 tests, then 3 is statistically insignificant IMO, and secondly, special situations are outliers, and outliers exist, so weird things will always happen in CM, it's their frequency that matters.

by the way i assumed cm is a combat simulation... and things like: "no one will notice" should not be the standard for a combat simulation...

I would say CM is a game that reasonably simulates combat, but there is always a room for improvement with any game trying to tackle something so complex, therefore BF, given their workload, will always prioritise anomalies that are noticeable over ones that probably aren't, so even if you have discovered an error, if it won't significantly change the game, or it's patently illogical, then don't be surprised if it never gets addressed.

Also, weird things happen in real life combat, so if weird things happen in CM, but infrequently, could that not be regarded as realistic ?, as long as it's not something that is absolutely physically impossible, i like some of the anomalies that CM throws up, and any attempt to iron out every conceivable error, IMO, would add a level of unrealistic determinism.

for example: i would be really pissed if my panzerIv gets screwed after an upper frontal hull hit at 1500m when i know that this should not really be possible.

But what's the tolerance for impossible, how many millimetres are you wanting the upper front hull increasing to ?........say it's increased to two millimetres, are you saying that that extra 2 millimetres makes it absolutely 100% impossible to penetrate ? or does it just make it more statistically unlikely ?

[siffo998]

But what's the tolerance for impossible, how many millimetres are you wanting the upper front hull increasing to ?........say it's increased to two millimetres, are you saying that that extra 2 millimetres makes it absolutely 100% impossible to penetrate ? or does it just make it more statistically unlikely ?

well given the angle of 72 to 73°, 2 mm makes a huge impact. of course "impossible" things are (and should) still happening but its a huge difference if the penetration happens frequently (like now) or only in a few cases...

and i do not think that increasing the armor of equipment X would cost the devs much time...

by the way theres still the ammo question:

was m61a1 available in large numbers in the cmbn timeframe?

was m61a1 at all available in the cmfi timeframe?

are there any sources regarding shipment/availability.

i`ve found a comment in the forum of matrixgames that suggests that the m61a1 was available at the normandy landing. i`ve also found another one that indicates that it was available at the end of 1943 which means that it should not be available to sherman crews at the invasion of sicily... at least not in large numbers...

but i havent found any hard data regarding shipments etc...

[akd]

From: Terminal Ballistic Data, Volume III. Office of the Chief of Ordnance, Sept. 1945.

[noob]

well given the angle of 72 to 73°, 2 mm makes a huge impact. of course "impossible" things are (and should) still happening but its a huge difference if the penetration happens frequently (like now) or only in a few cases...

and i do not think that increasing the armor of equipment X would cost the devs much time...

by the way theres still the ammo question:

was m61a1 available in large numbers in the cmbn timeframe?

was m61a1 at all available in the cmfi timeframe?

are there any sources regarding shipment/availability.

i`ve found a comment in the forum of matrixgames that suggests that the m61a1 was available at the normandy landing. i`ve also found another one that indicates that it was available at the end of 1943 which means that it should not be available to sherman crews at the invasion of sicily... at least not in large numbers...

but i havent found any hard data regarding shipments etc...

I was more concerned about the assertion that you were no better off in a PzIV than a Sherman at 1500m, rather than the amount of UFH penetrations a PzIV could sustain, if there was no difference between the two tank types at 1500m, then German optical superiority was irrelevant, which is a significant problem IMO, however it was your data that was the problem, by not counting retreats, you skewed the results.

As for the amount of penetrations on the UFH of a PzIVH, i can live with that, as long as it isn't, to me, a significant factor in the outcomes of tank on tank duels in general, but that's me, i see CM as more of a game than a sim, so i can respect your perspective, even if i cannot share it

[vossiewulf1212]

To add one more anecdotal bit of amusement here: I just had a Pz-IVG (Late) have its upper hull top penetrated (at what had to have been like an 85 degree angle of impact) by a 57mm AT gun, and the round went straight through that tank and penetrated the lower right side of the Pz-IV behind him. Pz-IV motto: "We Don't Even Slow Rounds Down!"

[vossiewulf1212]

As for the amount of penetrations on the UFH of a PzIVH, i can live with that, as long as it isn't, to me, a significant factor in the outcomes of tank on tank duels in general, but that's me, i see CM as more of a game than a sim, so i can respect your perspective, even if i cannot share it

Um that wasn't the case, at least in my tests, where the Pz-IVs were lucky to come out close to even and most often were beaten like rented mules.

I started Siffo off on this, but my test was simpler and I believe a more accurate representation of game results: Lining up 17 Regular Shermans and PZ-IVs face to face on open terrain at 1500m (with someplace they could retreat to to get out of sight) with everyone being able to see everyone, and then I let it run ten games turns and just counted up how many were still alive on each side.

The losses for each side were...

US German

5 14

5 10

1 12

9 12

6 13

And testing on my big map with regular game play says the same thing, at 1200-2000 meters, Shermans stomp Pz-Iv face. Inside 1000m and it's pretty even.

[John Kettler]

Vossie,

Talk about counterintuitive results!

Vanir Ausf B,

I think you're a bit confused. M72 AP is AP shot. M61 AP= APC is AP shell, with a penetration cap. M61A1 APC has a penetration cap and a ballistic cap (a thin metal windscreen giving the projectile a more aerodynamic shape). American nomenclature is too abbreviated. Why? M61A1 APC is really APCBC-Armor Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped. Have not included the "T," designating a tracer in the base to track projectile flight path where such detail is needed.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

Vanir Ausf B,

I think you're a bit confused. M72 AP is AP shot. M61 AP= APC is AP shell, with a penetration cap. M61A1 APC has a penetration cap and a ballistic cap (a thin metal windscreen giving the projectile a more aerodynamic shape). American nomenclature is too abbreviated. Why? M61A1 APC is really APCBC-Armor Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped. Have not included the "T," designating a tracer in the base to track projectile flight path where such detail is needed.

Sure looks to me like they both have a ballistic cap.

[akd]

M61 and M61A1 were both APCBC.

[Vanir Ausf B]

That's what I was sayin'. All Kettler had to do was look at his own link.

[John Kettler]

akd and Vanir Ausf B,

There's a disconnect in the information stream somewhere. Maybe it's the way the Wiki's written, or maybe I misread something, so came to the wrong conclusion. Either way, what I wrote is clearly wrong. I guess, then I'd like to know what the specific changes are between the M61 and M61A1?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Steiner14]

Wrong, look at this test i ran a while back: https://sites.google.com/site/cmx2tankvtanktests/

Dream on, if you think that way superior optics made a 10% difference at 2000m.

[noob]

Um that wasn't the case, at least in my tests, where the Pz-IVs were lucky to come out close to even and most often were beaten like rented mules.

I started Siffo off on this, but my test was simpler and I believe a more accurate representation of game results: Lining up 17 Regular Shermans and PZ-IVs face to face on open terrain at 1500m (with someplace they could retreat to to get out of sight) with everyone being able to see everyone, and then I let it run ten games turns and just counted up how many were still alive on each side.

The losses for each side were...

US German

5 14

5 10

1 12

9 12

6 13

And testing on my big map with regular game play says the same thing, at 1200-2000 meters, Shermans stomp Pz-Iv face. Inside 1000m and it's pretty even.

I tested 15 PzIVH (early) v 15 M4A1 Sherman (mid) tanks using the set up i mentioned earlier in this thread, this time i played it as a PBEM game against myself, as opposed to a hot seat game, and after every turn, i unbuttoned any buttoned tank, and stopped any movement, the test went on until one sides tanks were totally destroyed, out of five tests, the results were as follows:

Test 1 - PzIV - destroyed = 2 / dismounted = 1..................Sherman - destroyed = 15

Test 2 - PzIV - destroyed = 1 / dismounted = 2..................Sherman - destroyed = 15

Test 3 - PzIV - destroyed = 6 / dismounted = 2..................Sherman - destroyed = 15

Test 4 - PzIV - destroyed = 1 / dismounted = 2..................Sherman - destroyed = 15

Test 5 - PzIV - destroyed = 3 / dismounted = 3..................Sherman - destroyed = 15

I will publish the results of the next 5 tests soon, the test scenario i used can be downloaded from boxnet at this link: https://www.box.com/files

Make sure all the tanks are unbuttoned at the start if you use this scenario, and also unbutton any buttoned tanks after each turn, as well as deleting any move paths.

[noob]

Dream on, if you think that way superior optics made a 10% difference at 2000m.

But they do give the PzIV a 2:1 advantage when it comes to combat at that range, and that will do for me.

[Vanir Ausf B]

To add one more anecdotal bit of amusement here: I just had a Pz-IVG (Late) have its upper hull top penetrated (at what had to have been like an 85 degree angle of impact) by a 57mm AT gun, and the round went straight through that tank and penetrated the lower right side of the Pz-IV behind him. Pz-IV motto: "We Don't Even Slow Rounds Down!"

That is not a phenomenon unique to the Pz IV. I'm running my own tests, and at 1500m I see occasional top hull penetrations of the Sherman too.

Also, at this range the large majority of hits on the Pz IV driver plate and lower hull do not penetrate. Most lethal penetrations are through the turret.

[siffo998]

I tested 15 PzIVH (early) v 15 M4A1 Sherman (mid) tanks using the set up i mentioned earlier in this thread, this time i played it as a PBEM game against myself, as opposed to a hot seat game, and after every turn, i unbuttoned any buttoned tank, and stopped any movement, the test went on until one sides tanks were totally destroyed, out of five tests, the results were as follows:

Test 1 - PzIV - destroyed = 2 / dismounted = 1..................Sherman - destroyed = 15

Test 2 - PzIV - destroyed = 1 / dismounted = 2..................Sherman - destroyed = 15

Test 3 - PzIV - destroyed = 6 / dismounted = 2..................Sherman - destroyed = 15

Test 4 - PzIV - destroyed = 1 / dismounted = 2..................Sherman - destroyed = 15

Test 5 - PzIV - destroyed = 3 / dismounted = 3..................Sherman - destroyed = 15

I will publish the results of the next 5 tests soon, the test scenario i used can be downloaded from boxnet at this link: https://www.box.com/files

Make sure all the tanks are unbuttoned at the start if you use this scenario, and also unbutton any buttoned tanks after each turn, as well as deleting any move paths.

ok noob iam sorry. i`ve just repeated my test using 5 lanes in cmfi and counting retreats and everything. the results are similar to yours. the pzIV spotted faster and showed a much deadlier performance at the range of 1000m distance.

CMFI

setup:

1 platoon of Panzer IV H (early) against 1 platoon of sherman 75mm m4a1 (mid). each pair of tanks seperated with a lane. so we get five single duels each round. i`ve unbuttoned each tank manually (using hotseat) after each minute and deleted paths of movements (just like noob in his tests).

Distance between the tanks: around 1000m.

results:

after 8 rounds

shermans:

retreated: 12

destroyed: 11

knocked out: 1

abandoned: 4

panzer IV:

retreated: 5

destroyed: 3

knocked out: 2

abandoned: 3

my two cents:

well just like earlier tests by noob and other people my test showed that panzer IV optics are really modeled. they are superior over the m4a1s at ranges of around 1000m.

still the question about the availability of m61a1 ammo for the cmfi period remains. because clearly the shermans ingame are using m61a1 according to their penetration performance.

furthermore iam still advocating the increase of panzerIV upper frontal hull (transmission cover) to 22mm and 25mm for the model G. I`ve seen a lot of hts against the transmission cover in the test and all were penetrations

[noob]

ok noob iam sorry. i`ve just repeated my test using 5 lanes in cmfi and counting retreats and everything. the results are similar to yours. the pzIV spotted faster and showed a much deadlier performance at the range of 1000m distance.

CMFI

setup:

1 platoon of Panzer IV H (early) against 1 platoon of sherman 75mm m4a1 (mid). each pair of tanks seperated with a lane. so we get five single duels each round. i`ve unbuttoned each tank manually (using hotseat) after each minute and deleted paths of movements (just like noob in his tests).

Distance between the tanks: around 1000m.

results:

after 8 rounds

shermans:

retreated: 12

destroyed: 11

knocked out: 1

abandoned: 4

panzer IV:

retreated: 5

destroyed: 3

knocked out: 2

abandoned: 3

my two cents:

well just like earlier tests by noob and other people my test showed that panzer IV optics are really modeled. they are superior over the m4a1s at ranges of around 1000m.

still the question about the availability of m61a1 ammo for the cmfi period remains. because clearly the shermans ingame are using m61a1 according to their penetration performance.

furthermore iam still advocating the increase of panzerIV upper frontal hull (transmission cover) to 22mm and 25mm for the model G. I`ve seen a lot of hts against the transmission cover in the test and all were penetrations

Good to see some independent verification of my tests, albeit in a slightly different environment, my firing range not having any walls, and after further tests, the results were pretty much the same as the first five, so i will decline from posting the results, as i think this issue has been put to bed.

As for the UFH thickness, if it's wrong, it should be fixed, but as i said before, it probably won't be a priority, but it's definitely worth mentioning.

[vossiewulf1212]

Again I'll be happy to send anyone who wants the map and the save I used to do my tests, show me what is different about my test other than it's 1500m vs. 1000m if I'm reading above correctly. It comes out conclusively in favor of the Shermans every time. One other difference in mine is everyone is buttoned.

[siffo998]

Again I'll be happy to send anyone who wants the map and the save I used to do my tests, show me what is different about my test other than it's 1500m vs. 1000m if I'm reading above correctly. It comes out conclusively in favor of the Shermans every time. One other difference in mine is everyone is buttoned.

pm sent... i`ll give it a try...