The sub-system is more prone to be demaged in CMBN 2.0 than CMFI

[Erwin.Rommel]

I just make a comparing test that TigerI vs 5 M4 at 250m(because 75mm can not penetrate the front armor of tiger),After a lot of tests,I found that in CMFI after took a lot of 75mm rounds from M4,there is no damage in any of the sub-system,but in CMBN2.0 the radio and optic are very vulnerable which gradually become damaged after take the same number of rounds.I suppose the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI should use the same damage model, So is there a bug in one of the games?

[akd]

This is not a controlled comparison as the ammunition carried by the Sherman has likely changed at the later date.

[Erwin.Rommel]

This is not a controlled comparison as the ammunition carried by the Sherman has likely changed at the later date.

There are two type of 75mm rounds,M61 APCBC,M72 AP.M72 AP is not commonly used by American tank in WW2.So there shouldn't be any difference in ammo.

I also found a very trick phenomenon,In CMFI the 75mm rounds hit the TigerI's front armor just bounce off without any explosion, but in CMBN the 75mm which hit the same place of tiger always explosion and cause damage to the radio and optics even if the round can not penetrate the armor.

[akd]

There is m61 with and without HE bursting charge. That is no trick phenomenon you see.

[siffo998]

There are two type of 75mm rounds,M61 APCBC,M72 AP.M72 AP is not commonly used by American tank in WW2.So there shouldn't be any difference in ammo.

I also found a very trick phenomenon,In CMFI the 75mm rounds hit the TigerI's front armor just bounce off without any explosion, but in CMBN the 75mm which hit the same place of tiger always explosion and cause damage to the radio and optics even if the round can not penetrate the armor.

actually as far as i know theres also a M61 APC version. the M61A1 APCBC shell is a updated version using a ballistic cap. the m61 apc version also has much less penetration capability then the APCBC shell. but i have no sources when the APCBC shells were shipped to the troops or if the CMFI Shermans use the APC version!? CM also makes a great mystery about which shell type is used exactly ingame. theres only one thing for sure: the shells used in CMBN are M61A1 APCBC shells. previous tests and a comment from charles regarding penetration made that clear.

[siffo998]

I just make a comparing test that TigerI vs 5 M4 at 250m(because 75mm can not penetrate the front armor of tiger),After a lot of tests,I found that in CMFI after took a lot of 75mm rounds from M4,there is no damage in any of the sub-system,but in CMBN2.0 the radio and optic are very vulnerable which gradually become damaged after take the same number of rounds.I suppose the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI should use the same damage model, So is there a bug in one of the games?

well i`ve just experienced something strange. i`ve ran some test rounds firefly vs. tiger (2000m range) without the tiger firing back (cover arc). the firefly hit the tiger multiple times. some riochets, some armor spalling and one partial penetration. NO SUBSYSTEM DAMAGE (radio and optics) AT ALL. only after a shell penetrated the armor and koed the tank the subsystem damage increased.

now i`ve used the same setup but replaced the firefly with a american sherman 76mm. guess what: the sherman hit the tiger multiple times. only riochets, no armor spalling, no penetration but THE SUBSYSTEM DAMAGE (optics and radio) INCREASED!

seems strange to me. after all, the shots from the firefly have more power and created armor spalling but did no damage to the subsystems? on the other hand the much weaker gun of the american sherman 76mm leads to subsystem damage without armor spalling and penetration!???

[slysniper]

Here is a fun little side note for you all. Recently I ran 2 tigers vs 8 churchhills, figuring the same thing. That non of them could kill the Tiger from the front.

At approx. 500-600 meters two Churchhills engaged the two tigers from the front, One churchhill had a 57 and the other a 75MM

The first solid hit from the 57 destroyed one Tiger, with in a few more rounds the 75 dmaged the gun on the other Tiger. I was shocked. I figured I had a unstoppable little force there.

But losing the Tiger to a 57 frontal hit was suprising.

[Michael Emrys]

well i`ve just experienced something strange. i`ve ran some test rounds firefly vs. tiger (2000m range) without the tiger firing back (cover arc). the firefly hit the tiger multiple times. some riochets, some armor spalling and one partial penetration. NO SUBSYSTEM DAMAGE (radio and optics) AT ALL. only after a shell penetrated the armor and koed the tank the subsystem damage increased.

now i`ve used the same setup but replaced the firefly with a american sherman 76mm. guess what: the sherman hit the tiger multiple times. only riochets, no armor spalling, no penetration but THE SUBSYSTEM DAMAGE (optics and radio) INCREASED!

seems strange to me. after all, the shots from the firefly have more power and created armor spalling but did no damage to the subsystems? on the other hand the much weaker gun of the american sherman 76mm leads to subsystem damage without armor spalling and penetration!???

I don't know if this is the answer, but if the Firefly is firing APDS sub-caliber munitions, the projectile will be smaller and thus less massive than the 76 mm. Which means it may transmit less shock when it strikes, and the subsystems you name are especially sensitive to shock.

Like I say, what you are observing may arise from completely different reasons, including a bug in the code. But the thought occurred to me and I thought I'd pass it on. Let me ask you, how many trials have you run? A small sample may not tell us anything at all about how the game normally runs.

Michael

[akd]

Presence of an HE bursting charge is likely the dominant factor in external sub-system damage.

[womble]

Here is a fun little side note for you all. Recently I ran 2 tigers vs 8 churchhills, figuring the same thing. That non of them could kill the Tiger from the front.

At approx. 500-600 meters two Churchhills engaged the two tigers from the front, One churchhill had a 57 and the other a 75MM

The first solid hit from the 57 destroyed one Tiger, with in a few more rounds the 75 dmaged the gun on the other Tiger. I was shocked. I figured I had a unstoppable little force there.

But losing the Tiger to a 57 frontal hit was suprising.

I think the Churchill in Normandy is using APDS ammo for that 6lber; Tiger penetrations at close (the distance you tested at counts) range aren't that surprising, apparently.

[Michael Emrys]

Presence of an HE bursting charge is likely the dominant factor in external sub-system damage.

I think you are right.

Michael

[MikeyD]

But losing the Tiger to a 57 frontal hit was suprising.

I understand Britain swapped out all of its Churchills 57s for 75s before the invasion but were unhappy with armor penetration so quickly swapped some 57s back specifically as tank killers. I recall one source calling 57mm with APDS the "poor man's 17 pounder". Just recently I discovered the 2 pounder gun with squeeze-bore 'littlejohn' barrel adaptor outperformed the U.S. 75mm at 500m! Minimal behind-armor effects but still that's impressive.

[A Canadian Cat]

Just recently I discovered the 2 pounder gun with squeeze-bore 'littlejohn' barrel adaptor outperformed the U.S. 75mm at 500m! Minimal behind-armor effects but still that's impressive.

The UK 57mm gun was the 6 pounder not the 2 pounder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_6_pounder

[slysniper]

I think the Churchill in Normandy is using APDS ammo for that 6lber; Tiger penetrations at close (the distance you tested at counts) range aren't that surprising, apparently.

your likely correct. I have no way of knowing if it was that ammo, but likely was.

It really was not a test , just a qb type of thing , messing around and wanted to see if I could get the churchhills to take out a Tiger, thinking it would be hard. 20 seconds into the firefight and both were useless. I was:eek:

[MikeyD]

The UK 57mm gun was the 6 pounder not the 2 pounder

Partially my error, I had abruptly switched topics. But the 2 pounder on the Daimler AC out-punched the US 75mm when littlejohn adaptor and ammo was used.

[Vanir Ausf B]

There is m61 with and without HE bursting charge. That is no trick phenomenon you see.

As far as I know all US 75mm AP used a bursting charge. It was the British that removed the charge.

actually as far as i know theres also a M61 APC version. the M61A1 APCBC shell is a updated version using a ballistic cap. the m61 apc version also has much less penetration capability then the APCBC shell.

The M61 and M61a1 both had a ballistic cap. I don't know why the a1 had better penetration.

[akd]

As far as I know all US 75mm AP used a bursting charge. It was the British that removed the charge.

m61 was first issued without the charge (due to problems with the fuze, iirc).

The M61 and M61a1 both had a ballistic cap. I don't know why the a1 had better penetration.

still haven't seen documentation that HE-filled m61 and m61a1 had different penetration.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Do Shermans in CMFI use ammo without a burster charge? I don't have the game but it should be easy for anyone with the game to see if they usually explode or ricochet against Tigers.

M61 ammo with the burster charge removed would have higher penetration than with the charge.

EDIT: I was looking over the old Pz H thread in the CMFI forum and saw a post by siffo that claimed 75mm performance vs Pz H in CMFI is the same as in CMBN which if true suggests the same ammunition.

[Redwolf]

Folks. The burster charge is for the inside of the target vehicle (and even for that found useless).

There is no way that an outside explosion from a bounce does more damage to the thing that the AP shell hit in the first place. The kinetic energy from the hit is much bigger than what the tiny HE charge can produce, much less forward, which is probably zero in the first place.

The tiny HE charge is useful to injure people inside the tank who are not in the path of the shell, or so they thought until they learned it is not.

So even if this explanation was true as far as the game is concerned, which certainly is not in the first place, it would be unrealistic.

[Erwin.Rommel]

I apologize for my mistake. It seems that the problem lies on the test itself. I used my old test battle that I created in the old version of the game. When I created a new test, the result is same as the CMFI, all the 75mm rounds bounce off the armor without any damage to the sub-system. However this is still very trick, the battle created in the older version may cause some data error in the new vesion of game.

[siffo998]

still haven't seen documentation that HE-filled m61 and m61a1 had different penetration.

heres a link to penetration tables clearly showing that there are M61 APC version and APCBC. the APC clearly has less punch than the APCBC.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/75-mm.asp

as far as i can see the APCBC penetration figures are the same as that posted by Charles here (used ingame):

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1239443&postcount=303

Regarding use of APDS in a firefly is highly unlikely

1) my test scenario uses June as Date and as far as i know the first APDS rounds were available in August (in very low numbers)

2) the game explicitly lists APDS rounds if available. for example buy a M10 tank destroyer in August and he has aproximately 2 APDS rounds listed in the ammo loadout.

[siffo998]

heres a link to penetration tables clearly showing that there are M61 APC version and APCBC. the APC clearly has less punch than the APCBC.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/75-mm.asp

as far as i can see the APCBC penetration figures are the same as that posted by Charles here (used ingame):

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1239443&postcount=303

Regarding use of APDS in a firefly is highly unlikely

1) my test scenario uses June as Date and as far as i know the first APDS rounds were available in August (in very low numbers)

2) the game explicitly lists APDS rounds if available. for example buy a M10 tank destroyer in August and he has aproximately 2 APDS rounds listed in the ammo loadout.

update: the fireflys in june really have APDS available. i`ve just fired up another test scenario and the loadout screen showed 5 APDS rounds... so maybe thats really the explanation. still it puzzles me why APDS rounds should do no interal damage while those with a charge (76mm) clearly do (tested it again. and iam using the most recent version of cmbn 2.0).

after all redwolfs point is a true one. the charge of those APCBC and APC rounds is very small and designed to harm the crew after penetration. i cannot see how a outside explosion of such a small charge could harm the subsystems while the impact shock of a non penetrating APDS round in the weapon mount (optics are mounted there) does not???

In addition: Why has the British army APDS rounds available at June and the Americans only at August ?

[Michael Emrys]

In addition: Why has the British army APDS rounds available at June and the Americans only at August ?

My understanding is that the Americans didn't use APDS at all (unless they happened to be using a British weapon that came supplied with APDS. What they did have in small numbers was HVAP, which is like APCR. These were only made in 76 mm SFAIK, and in the beginning were only available to the TDs. Later on, tankers were sometimes able to swap some HE for HVAP rounds.

If the game is showing Americans using APDS, maybe what is meant is HVAP but the interface simply does not have that category.

Michael

[akd]

heres a link to penetration tables clearly showing that there are M61 APC version and APCBC. the APC clearly has less punch than the APCBC.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/75-mm.asp

Table is simply reproducing the confusion of designations found in various sources, particularly across British and American sources. M61 APC was APCBC.

[siffo998]

theres something really odd with those fireflys:

i`ve repeated the test multiple times (firefly against tiger at 2000m distance). hotseat. the tiger used a cover arc so that he could not shoot back. basically the hits from the firefly caused all kind of stuff:

some riochets, some partial penetrations, some penetrations

but NOT A SINGLE HIT CAUSED OPTIC OR RADIO DAMAGE.

just for comparison the american sherman 76mm at the same range causes constantly increasing optic and radio damage even without penetrating the tigers armor at all (at 2000m).

by the way the firefly also uses normal APCBC ammo not only the APDS but still theres no internal damage.

well looks like the subsystem damage still needs a tweak or two.