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

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't see the point in more testing. The ballistics model appears to be working fine. As previously mentioned, there is a strong argument in favor of a small increase in Pz IV front armor to represent real world variation but these variations were common in German AFVs.

My test with buttoned tanks shows that when vehicle optics are the only means of spotting, the Pz IV dominates. The anecdotal evidence I have seen suggests that the Allied tanker's primary issue with Pz IV at long range isn't a lack of ability to destroy them, it was the difficulty in seeing them. There are several reasons why.

1) Moving vehicles are easier to spot than stationary ones, and in the ETO it was the Allies who were on the attack the large majority of the time. In CM Germans are as likely to be on the move as the Allies.

2) Tank optics. This is modeled in CM with regard to spotting although it doesn't seem to have any effect on accuracy as it probably should.

3) Binoculars. Testing shows that Shermans can greatly reduce the German advantage in optics by remaining unbuttoned. That's fine, but the German advantage in optics was not limited to vehicles. They also had better binoculars. I don't think this is modeled in CM.

4) German use of "smokeless" powder. This is not modeled in CM.

"Due to the type of powder a Jerry tank uses, they can fire at you and are difficult to pick up because there is so little smoke or muzzle flash. When we fire our 76mm there is so much smoke and muzzle flash that you can hardly observe your burst, except at long ranges."

-- Cpl. Everette J. Harris, Gunner

[Killkess]

My test with buttoned tanks shows that when vehicle optics are the only means of spotting, the Pz IV dominates. The anecdotal evidence I have seen suggests that the Allied tanker's primary issue with Pz IV at long range isn't a lack of ability to destroy them, it was the difficulty in seeing them. There are several reasons why.

....

2) Tank optics. This is modeled in CM with regard to spotting although it doesn't seem to have any effect on accuracy as it probably should.

From my perspective the outcome, that the buttoned IV spots better than the M4, doesnt mean the IV has a advantage in gunner-optics. For me it seems like the advantage comes from better observation devices for general spotting. An advantage in gunner-optics should clearly be reflected via a better accuracy for long range shooting, for this it should make no difference if the commander hatch is closed or open.

[John Kettler]

Killkess,

I believe there's an overlooked explanation for the IV's spotting advantage while buttoned--the cupola. It looks like this from the inside (vision blocks missing and openings closed). These are direct vision optics. See Picture 2 for pic & text.

http://panzerivuniverse.phelpscomputerservices.com/Album0000047.htm

Up armored IV cupola model

http://www.armorpax.com/Armorpax/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=303

Here's a great high resolution closeup of the cupola from the outside. (0:27 in)

Shermans don't have cupolas--until much later. The classic Sherman has a ProtectoScope in the commander's hatch. The ProtectoScope is a prismatic periscope which can be swiveled to provide view in various directions.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/thread/1269068016/M4+Sherman+.50cal+pintle+question

The inner part of a ProtectoScope (gory pic of the Sherman and driver clobbered by the Panther in Cologne).

http://albumwar2.com/images/stories/photo/05.08.2012/331.jpg

Detailed look at the externals of this kind of hatch.

http://the.shadock.free.fr/Tanks_in_France/sherman_ecouche/imagepages/image13.html

I believe this is what's generating the spotting differential in favor of the Panzer IV. I think it might be worthwhile to measure the height of the vision ports of the IV, as compared to the commander's external Protectoscope optics.

In closing, I noticed something remarkable in the above vid. Please see the unusual configuration of the armor behind the driver's plate. What I thought I saw was an angled plate behind the added piece protecting the driver. Never read about that before!

I'll close by opining that you can't apply your gunnery optics advantage unless the TC first detects the enemy and tells the gunner where the target is in the first place. The TC is the critical first link in the kill chain, so now you know why captured Zeiss and Leitz binoculars were so highly prized by U.S. tankers. He who spots first generally shoots first, and both dueling theory and combat showed the advantage lies with the one shooting first.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Killkess,

Here's a high resolution color pic of the armor feature I noted in passing on the vid of the Panzer IV/H at Munster. This one's from RAC Bovington and shows the same thing. I'd think such a configuration would not help projectile integrity at all when trying to pierce it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/barryslemmings/216405012/in/photostream/

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Killkess,

Correction. The pic is NOT of a Panzer IV/H but of a heavily up-armored Panzer IV/D, as seen in the pic third up from the bottom here.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iv.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

In closing, I noticed something remarkable in the above vid. Please see the unusual configuration of the armor behind the driver's plate. What I thought I saw was an angled plate behind the added piece protecting the driver. Never read about that before!

Hmmmm, yes. Two layers of bolt on spaced armor. New to me too. I wonder if that was a field expedient perhaps unique to the unit that operated this vehicle.

Michael

[Killkess]

Killkess,

I believe there's an overlooked explanation for the IV's spotting advantage while buttoned--the cupola.

Yes, i was referring to the cupola and/or the quality of the observation prisms. To be honest I A) didnt know the english term didnt know that the Sherman only got something equal later. Do you know when exactly?

Keeping this in mind i tend to say that the only valid test for the gunner-optics advantage would be to compare the numbers for unbuttoned tanks. (to eliminate the effect of better spotting from cupola) The result for unbuttoned tanks strongly suggests that there is no big difference in gunner optics between IV and M4 in CM2.

[John Kettler]

Killkess,

No, I don't. Nor do I have Hunnicutt's SHERMAN, the definitive reference. Here is a photo collection of many Shermans, broken out by type. If you can find which model was produced when, that should help. From what I can tell, the cupola variety was scarce in Normandy.

http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/allied.htm

According to the Standard Ordnance Items Catalogue, Volume 1, p. 21, the Sherman 105mm (Standard August 1943) was the first with a cupola, followed by the 76mm armed Shermans (Ibid. p. 22)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13810463/Standard-Ordnance-Items-Catalog-1944-Vol-1

From what I can tell, later in the war, cupolas got retrofitted to earlier Shermans, but for CMFI, there should be NO Shermans at all with cupolas. For CMBN, there are rare Sherman 105s and the relatively scarce Sherman 76mm.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Killkess,

This is what the T23 Cupola looks like from up close. The windows are 3" thick armor glass.

http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com/restore_56.jpg

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

This is what the T23 Cupola looks like from up close. The windows are 3" thick armor glass.

Do my eyes deceive me or does the hatch still retain the periscope?

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

I believe what you're seeing is a steel plate welded over the opening through which the business end of a ProtectoScope was designed to protrude. This simple expedient allows existing hatches (which already have the opening) to be used on the new cupola. Can I prove this from one pic? Hardly. My explanation makes eminently good sense. Besides, if the TC's got all those vision blocks for operating while buttoned, why would he need a periscope? Fancy optics cost money and take skilled labor to produce. Therefore, they are only used when and where required. Little things add up quickly when doing huge production runs!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

I believe what you're seeing is a steel plate welded over the opening through which the business end of a ProtectoScope was designed to protrude.

I can't say absolutely that you are wrong, but to me it doesn't look welded. The only place I believe I can detect welding on the cupola and hatch is that U-shaped bracket on the hinge, and the cover over the P-Scope doesn't look like that at all. In fact, it looks like it's meant to open freely.

Besides, if the TC's got all those vision blocks for operating while buttoned, why would he need a periscope?

Probably because, as you suggest, it was already there and there was no compelling reason to remove it. It could still be deleted from future production, but why go to the trouble of removing an existing feature on an already manufactured item? Besides, the vision blocks were subject to damage from bullets and fragments, and having a P-Scope, since it was already there, might be thought good insurance.

But as you say, impossible to determine from one photo without additional information from a reliable source.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Here's the only Sherman I've ever been in (unfortunately while static, but still cool). You'll note this one has the T23 cupola and that there's no ProtectoScope visible in the TC's hatch.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Here's a Sherman vid, showing Shermans with and without cupolas. In no case, where a cupola equipped Sherman's TC hatch is open, is there a Protectoscope visible. Earlier Sherman sans cupolas have very prominent ProtectoScope installations.

Regards,

John Kettler