Among all the rounds with HE charge, only the US 75,37mm do no harm to the sub-system

[Erwin.Rommel]

I further test the damage model with all the rounds in both the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI.

First,all my tests is in the situation that the rounds hit the armor without penetrate it.

1.all the british rounds(17pdrs 6pdrs) can not damage the sub-system in any vehicle in the game when hit the target without penetration, possible because all bristish rounds are not filled with HE charge.

2.all the rounds with HE charge (GE:50mm,75mm,88mm,Italy:47mm,US 76mm 57mm) do harm to the sub-system especially the radio and optics when the rounds hit the target without penetrate it.

3.In both the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI,the US 75mm and 37mm do no harm to the sub-system in any of the vehicles in the game when the rounds don't penetrate it.

As we all know both the US 75mm and 37mm are filled with a big HE charge. Then BFC ,could you explain this,why this happen?

[akd]

US 37mm AP does not have a bursting charge. Which tank did you use to test the 75mm?

[Vanir Ausf B]

If US 75mm is not doing any subsystem damage in CMBN 2.0 then that is a change from 1.0 at least, if not more recently. I did some testing on the effect of optics damage last year under v1.0 and it was US Sherman 75s that I used to knock out the optics in the Panthers and Tigers.

[Erwin.Rommel]

If US 75mm is not doing any subsystem damage in CMBN 2.0 then that is a change from 1.0 at least, if not more recently. I did some testing on the effect of optics damage last year under v1.0 and it was US Sherman 75s that I used to knock out the optics in the Panthers and Tigers.

This change begins at the 2.0 engine,I just test this in CMBN 1.11 in my old laptap, both the 37mm and 75mm do harm to the sub-system.

you can test it with yourself, just remember, created a new test, old battles sometimes cause data error.

[Erwin.Rommel]

US 37mm AP does not have a bursting charge. Which tank did you use to test the 75mm?

Definitely, the 37mm APCBC has HE charge, you can check this in the CMx1.

The 75mm that I tested is fire from the US sherman tank in both the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI.

The strange thing is in CMBN 1.11, the US 37mm and 75mm do have the damage effect to the sub-system.

[siffo998]

This change begins at the 2.0 engine,I just test this in CMBN 1.11 in my old laptap, both the 37mm and 75mm do harm to the sub-system.

you can test it with yourself, just remember, created a new test, old battles sometimes cause data error.

yes the change was made with the 2.0 version. before this version even the 75mm caused internal damage without penetration (was ridiculous -> for example panther lower front hull hit caused optic damage). really this whole subsystem damage in cm2 is a big mystery to me... why does the sherman 76mm cause damage with non penetrating hits... while the british firefly does not... ?? even the lack of a HE charge could not explain this because those little charges can do no damage at all to a non penetrated tank...

[akd]

Definitely, the 37mm APCBC has HE charge, you can check this in the CMx1.

US 37mm AP did not have a bursting charge. If it did in CMx1, then that was wrong.

before this version even the 75mm caused internal damage without penetration.

Optics and radio have external components.

Not sure what happened with US 75mm AP in 2.0. At this date I believe at least some proportion of M61 APC should have the bursting charge, but I'm not 100% sure that is what we are seeing regarding external damage.

One way I think you can check for presence of a bursting charge is to observe ricochets and see if they explode when they return to earth.

[Erwin.Rommel]

A further important finding:

The shermans in the CMBN used different ammo,only the 75mm rounds fired from the M4A3 75(W) (early mid) and M4A1(late) can damage the sub-system, these rounds has HE-charge, when the rounds hit the grounds,they explode. All the other version of sherman including the shermans used by the CW and the shermans in the CMFI fire the 75mm without the HE-charge and do no harm to the sub-system.this is really strange for the game. Different version of sherman used different type of rounds, this is totally un-realistic for WW2.

[akd]

That is important. Thanks.

[siffo998]

Optics and radio have external components.

yes but neither the radio nor the optics have external components in the lower hull...

i can totally understand when the optics get damaged if the weapon mount area is hit (exact part where the optics are mounted) but a non penetrating hull hit should not do the trick...

[Vanir Ausf B]

A further important finding:

The shermans in the CMBN used different ammo,only the 75mm rounds fired from the M4A3 75(W) (early mid) and M4A1(late) can damage the sub-system, these rounds has HE-charge, when the rounds hit the grounds,they explode. All the other version of sherman including the shermans used by the CW and the shermans in the CMFI fire the 75mm without the HE-charge and do no harm to the sub-system.this is really strange for the game. Different version of sherman used different type of rounds, this is totally un-realistic for WW2.

The British removed the burster charge from their ammo so it's correct that their Shermans don't have it.

From what I have read M61a1 was the standard 75mm AP round used by the US during the CMBN time frame.

[John Kettler]

Erwin.Rommel,

Let's start by looking into some of your claims. Since you don't define your terms very well, I'll try to help clarify your meaning.

U.S. 37mm

Antitank projectile has NO burster charge. Terminal effects are by kinetic energy only. There is a separate HE shell. See page 505 here of the Standard Ordnance Items Catalogue, Vol 3.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13810984/Standard-Ordnance-Items-Catalog-1944-Vol-3

The 75mm AP projectile DOES have a bursting charge.

Ibid. pp. 515-516.

The 76mm AP had one projectile without a bursting charge and another with it.

Ibid. (no pagination, but past the 75mm)

The 17 pr had AP with a bursting charge and APDS, which didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder

Am still running down the reference for the British 75mm AP projectiles, but my recollection is that the British removed the base detonation fuze and filled the fuze well with concrete. This was apparently because they did't trust fuzes to detonate AP shell properly and because they were seeking as much penetration as possible against very tough German tanks.

Armed with the above, and bearing in mind that HE was available for every tank/TD/AT gun listed, I invite you to revisit your tests.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erwin.Rommel]

Erwin.Rommel,

Let's start by looking into some of your claims. Since you don't define your terms very well, I'll try to help clarify your meaning.

U.S. 37mm

Antitank projectile has NO burster charge. Terminal effects are by kinetic energy only. There is a separate HE shell. See page 505 here of the Standard Ordnance Items Catalogue, Vol 3.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13810984/Standard-Ordnance-Items-Catalog-1944-Vol-3

The 75mm AP projectile DOES have a bursting charge.

Ibid. pp. 515-516.

The 76mm AP had one projectile without a bursting charge and another with it.

Ibid. (no pagination, but past the 75mm)

The 17 pr had AP with a bursting charge and APDS, which didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder

Am still running down the reference for the British 75mm AP projectiles, but my recollection is that the British removed the base detonation fuze and filled the fuze well with concrete. This was apparently because they did't trust fuzes to detonate AP shell properly and because they were seeking as much penetration as possible against very tough German tanks.

Armed with the above, and bearing in mind that HE was available for every tank/TD/AT gun listed, I invite you to revisit your tests.

Regards,

John Kettler

Thank you for your conclusion. I made some mistakes in my claims and caused some confusion.

Now I try to conclude my point again.

all these results based on my tests in the CMBN 2.0 and CMFI.

1. for US 37mm, it is my fault, the US 37mm used APCBC shot without bursting charge. In the game ,37mm do no harm to the sub-system, there is nothing wrong with it.

2. all CW rounds without bursting charge(6pdrs,17pdrs,75mm) do no harm to the sub-system.

3.the US 76mm 57mm can damage the sub-system. the issue lies on the 75mm rounds of US sherman. the M4A1(mid),M4A3,M4(mid)in CMBN2.0 and M4A1(early,mid) M4(early,mid) fire solid AP rounds(maybe the M72 AP shot) and do no harm to the sub-system. But M4A3 75(w)(early,mid) and the M4A1(late) fire the 75mm APCBC rounds with bursting charge(shounld be the M61 or M61A1) and do harm to the sub-system. This is very strange since all these types of shermans used by US army simultaneously in WW2. Different type of AP rounds were not be distributed according to the different type of tank. So I suppose it is not very realistic in the game.

Btw, the bursting charge are used to increase the after-effect of rounds after penetrate the Armor, there is no evidence that the explosion of bursting charge in the thickest place of tank for instance the upper hull front of panther can damage the sub-system(optics and radio) of tank.

[siffo998]

Btw, the bursting charge are used to increase the after-effect of rounds after penetrate the Armor, there is no evidence that the explosion of bursting charge in the thickest place of tank for instance the upper hull front of panther can damage the sub-system(optics and radio) of tank.

Second that!

[siffo998]

guess what i´ve just retested the setup sherman m4a3 (right side facing the enemy tank) against a german lynx at 600m distance. the lynx fired about 10 bursts from his 20mm at the shermans side (without penetration) and the optics and radio of the sherman were knocked out (increasing subsystem damage around each second burst).

well i`ve done this whole subsystem damage testing month ago (you can try the search function for the old thread) and provided bfc with the test results of a whole thread (pm`ed it to steve). it seems like nothing was fixed. the same strange damage system as always. i`ve thought it was fixed in cmfi but it seems its just because of the lack of HE charges in the AP round.

[c3k]

siffo998,

Sincere questions:

Is the result of the Lynx 20mm something you disagre with?

Should a burst of 20mm with HE result in damage, or not?

Should a burst of 20mm AP with no HE result in damage, or not?

(My opinion: the radio sets were much more fragile - tubes, not chips - in the '40's. There is frequent mention in AAR's that radios get knocked out by non-penetrating hits.)

Ken

[siffo998]

siffo998,

Sincere questions:

Is the result of the Lynx 20mm something you disagre with?

Should a burst of 20mm with HE result in damage, or not?

Should a burst of 20mm AP with no HE result in damage, or not?

(My opinion: the radio sets were much more fragile - tubes, not chips - in the '40's. There is frequent mention in AAR's that radios get knocked out by non-penetrating hits.)

Ken

well the 20mm was fired at the side of the sherman. the sherman has no optics at the side (maybe except the vision blocks of the commanders cupola) so how on earth should a non penetrating hit on the side of a sherman completely knock out its aiming optics ? its impossible in my opinion.

radio: why is the 20mm of the germans damaging the radio system of tanks (with non penetrating hits) while the much larger high velocity british tank guns (6pdr, 17pdr etc) do no damage at all even when the enemy tank is hit 20 times or more. on the other hand the american 75mm (at least the m4a1 and m4a3 versions) and 76mm are damaging optics and radio...

this whole system seems to be highly artificial... theres no real logic behind it. there seems to be no check at all if a certain part of the tank is hit... instead the game simply adds up damage per hit (for optics and radio).

and again a HE charge whitin the AP round does not explain the internal damage of non penetrating hits. the shock comes from the impact of the round not the extremely small explosion of the HE charge within the AP round.

[Amizaur]

"2. all the rounds with HE charge (GE:50mm,75mm,88mm,Italy:47mm,US 76mm 57mm) do harm to the sub-system especially the radio and optics when the rounds hit the target without penetrate it."

Seems that the game treats the rounds with HE charge like HE projectiles regarding to non-penetrating hits damage calculations. And the simulated damage is done with simulated blast and shrapnel. BUT an HE burster of AP round is so small, comparing to HE round charge, that the effect (chance of something actually getting damaged by shrapnels from HE burster detonation) should be let's say 1/10th of chances provided by true HE round.

Have you compared, by chance, chances of subsystem damage for AP rounds with burst charges vs chances of true HE/fragmentation rounds ?

The second thought was - how a shrapnel can damage a radio ? Well, there is some part of the radio that is outside of the armor - the antenna. I think the game simulates damage done by shrapnel to the external elements - optics and antennas. Only, that it makes it well, in a very simple way... Hits in lower front armor really shouldn't damage optics or antennas.

I wonder also, if hits of small AP in side armor are still causing Tiger optics damage in 2.0 ? Or is it fixed ?

[Erwin.Rommel]

Another point about the AP rounds with bursting charge, sometimes, when hits the armor and bounce off, these rounds still cause damage to the sub-system. But the AP rounds without bursting charge never cause damage when hit without penetrate the armor.

Think about that,an 57mm AP(HE)rounds hits the upper hull front of a kingtiger and bounce off but still damage the optics and radio, but the 17prs rounds repeatly hit the same place never cause any damage to the tank...

I just try my test in the CMBN 1.11 by using my old laptap. All shermans in the 1.11 fire the AP with bursting charge and damage the sub-system.