BFC, Request for 3-inch AT ammo change

[John Kettler]

I don't know whether it's MikeyD, Phil or someone else altogether, but I made a find which may affect the tactical dynamics in CMFI/GL and, for all I know, CMFI, too. This has to do with the 3-inch TD, both towed and SP, having only M79 AP Shot (see Standard Catalogue of Ordnance Items), whereas I have an Operations Report (601st TD Battalion, equipped with the M10) from Anzio which clearly states that 3" APC BDF was used there with excellent results. BDF = Base Detonating Fuze, and would be an issue solely for AP Shell, since Shot has only the projectile proper and a tracer element. Period.

The significance of this lies in the substantial performance difference vs face-hardened armor for the two cartridges, with the strong edge to the M62A1 APC-T. See page 504 for performance comparison chart.

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

I checked with GreenAsJade in his AAR for the GL fight vs Bil, and according to him, he has only AP shot. The Operations Report covering Op Shingle I found at www. tankdestroyer.net flat out contradicts this situation. There, the APC-T, M62A1 was in use.

From my #364

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109405&page=37

"The now declassified Ops Report, dated February 4, 1944, under underscored "e" 2, specifically talks about Shell 3" APC-BDF.

http://www.tankdestroyer.net/images/...Rpt_of_Ops.pdf

This is clearly AP shell, and the BDF confirms it. Base Detonating Fuze. AP Shot has no fuze, only tracer. If the APC-T M62A1 isn't in the game, then it needs to be...."

For your purposes, the only two links that really matter are the first and the third, since the middle one merely provides the Forum context.

I don't know when the AP ammo transition occurred, but it evidently was before or during the early parts of Op Shingle. Unless and until the ammo type for 3-inch AT work work is fixed, the American player is going to be at an ahistorical disadvantage vs all those face-hardened armor equipped German tanks and SPs. Please look into this.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

I checked with GreenAsJade in his AAR for the GL fight vs Bil, and according to him, he has only AP shot. .

I cannot find any such comment. And in any case I don't know how he or you would make that determination. The game UI makes no distinction between AP and APHE, nor between AP and APC. It is all listed as "AP" in the UI.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

It seems to me that with three different AT ammunition types, available in combination at times, there really ought to be such a distinction made, e.g., AP, APC and T. When GreenAsJade said (still looking for that statement) he had only AP listed, I took his statement to mean that was the particular AT ammo type, since the Standard Catalogue of Ordnance Items, Volume 3 uses "AP" specifically to refer to the M79 AP-T. This may've been an error by me, since I don't have the game. As I indicated, it makes a considerable difference, when fighting a foe equipped with face-hardened armor, whether the cartridge used is the M79 or M62A1. Against a foe with RHA, by contrast, there's a bit of an edge to the M79, but not a lot.

I think it fair to argue for player transparency here, since it's impossible to effectively evaluate in-game performance vs real world results when it can't be determined at a glance what cartridge the player's using. To my knowledge, this is the first time we've had this situation, because before, we had AP and T for high velocity AT weapons. that was fine, then, but things are no more complex.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

It seems to me that with three different AT ammunition types, available in combination at times, there really ought to be such a distinction made, e.g., AP, APC and T.

I agree.

This may've been an error by me, since I don't have the game.

I don't have CMFI either, but I do have CMBN and they use the same UI, AFAIK.

[Brindlewolf]

Well to be fair this game is a simulation.The game chooses what tank ammo is appropriate.Yes some of the armour ingame has some different AP shot but not many anyway.

Here is an example i do all the time.My Infantry spot a tank behind a barn or building.Fine now i'll bring some of my armour forward to deal with it while it stays hidden.In a RL situation you would put AP through the building,which in reality would go straight through and hopefully with a bit of luck hit its target.In CM,your tanks fire HE because all the game sees is a building and it'll take 5 mins or more for the buiding to collapse-if at all-for your tanks to then engage.

So in reality i want AP,ingame i get HE.Thats just the way it goes.When it comes to armour and vehicles i'm sure the game does the same.I've seen it fire HE at half tracks other times AP,tanks it'll choose whatever it warrants or has.Be nice to have a choice as in the building example but it's no big deal really.

[John Kettler]

Brindlewolf,

Maybe something's changed, but in CMx1 we had multiple incidences of a shot going clear through a building, then nailing the tank behind it. But while we're on HE, the game doesn't seem to know what Delay means for HE in DF. If it did, HE would go off inside buildings, instead of outside them. Mind, this wouldn't work for substantial stone walls, but you get the idea.

Regards,

John Kettler

[akd]

When GreenAsJade said (still looking for that statement) he had only AP listed, I took his statement to mean that was the particular AT ammo

I can't imagine what would lead you to that assumption. All AP shot/shell ammo in the game is listed as "AP" and always has been.

[John Kettler]

akd,

It made sense at the time. Now, it doesn't seem quite as reasonable. But the major point is reasonable. We need to find out what the AP round is now and if not the M62A1, when the switch took place. Somewhere during CMFI, and maybe during or prior to GL, there was a transition from the Substitute Standard M79 to the Standard M62A1. Which one's fired at what makes a difference, sometimes quite a difference, as noted in the link to the Standard Catalogue of Ordnance Items. Because of this performance delta, the player needs to know which AT round is being used in order to determine what the open fire range should be based on penetration values against specified armored targets. If all the player has is the M79 and is confronting Panzers with face-hardened armor, open fire range should be shortened to reflect a considerable difference in penetration vs the more potent M62A1. That's why I'm trying to get BFC directly involved in this, to me, important matter. Gunners work from penetration tables. Were this not so, they wouldn't be in the manuals. From this, it follows that gunnery would generally be driven by the effective range against a baseline tank target, said range being very much a function of the AT round in use.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lethaface]

I can't imagine what would lead you to that assumption. All AP shot/shell ammo in the game is listed as "AP" and always has been.

IIRC in CMSF there was visual representation of AP munition, most if not all Blue tanks had APFSDS available, but not (all of) the Red tanks. Might be wrong though, although I'm 100% sure there was visual representation of both HEAT and T-HEAT

[John Kettler]

Lethaface,

I don't have CMSF. Please tell me what T-HEAT is. My first guess would be thermobaric, but I know of no gun launched thermobaric munition.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ZPB II]

Lethaface,

I don't have CMSF. Please tell me what T-HEAT is. My first guess would be thermobaric, but I know of no gun launched thermobaric munition.

Regards,

John Kettler

Tandem. xoxoxoxo

[akd]

IIRC in CMSF there was visual representation of AP munition, most if not all Blue tanks had APFSDS available, but not (all of) the Red tanks. Might be wrong though, although I'm 100% sure there was visual representation of both HEAT and T-HEAT

When I say AP shot and shell, I am referring specifically to those types, not to the broader category of ammunition that pierces armor. HEAT, APCR, APDS and other special ammo have their own listing.

[Lethaface]

When I say AP shot and shell, I am referring specifically to those types. HEAT, APCR, APDS, etc. have their own listing.

Ah, I understood AP as in general AP, be that AP/APHE/APC/APDS/APCR/APFSDS etc

Back when I was new to the CM universe, at CM:SF's introduction, I was actually 'amazed' that they went the distance to put all those different ammo types in. After having a short look in the manual even the different ATGM models were listed!

Funny in retrospect, now the topic is about which type of shells are omitted

And @Kettler, like ZPB#2 indicated T-HEAT stands for Tandem HEAT of which I suspect you have plenty knowledge readily available I can still recommend the game to you. It might add to your immersion that Thermobaric rounds were available for both RPG-29 and SMAW launchers, apart from HEDP and other goodies. If I had the time I would surely go back, still need to finish most NATO campaigns, not speaking of CM:A. And unlike CM:BN AAA was available in Shilka and truck mounted ZSU-2-23 form. Both were beasts in the games.

[John Kettler]

Zebulon Pleasure Beast II and Lethaface,

Appreciate explanation, but was in a different brain space when I came across that new to me acronym. I do know what a tandem charge is, for TOW 2a had one, a precursor charge on the standoff probe intended to detonate the ERA, paving the way for the main warhead. The Russians countered that, which is why we went to TOW 2b. Your T-HEAT must be a much more compact version of that rather elongated configuration.

Am slogging my way through CMBN but really look forward to CMSF 2. I fervently hope that by then they've figured out that LOS needs to be modeled from the targeting sensor, not the vehicle per se. Failure to do so neuters lots of weapons.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

O BFC

Where can you be?

Please drop in

and help us see

What's really under

This AP hood?

Knowing what's what

Would be really good

This would scan better

Were I fully awake

Pray remove our unknowingness

And our grog concerns slake!

Which cartridge and when

We'd so love to know

Than sitting out here

Uninformed in the snow!

"At what range, sir,

Should fire commence?"

And I silently ask

"O Steve harken hence!"

For the Panzers approach

To smash up the rear

But firing too soon

Could well cost us dear.

So to you, BFC

We urgently apply

Shot, AP or A.P.C.

Before we all die?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

For the marginally illiterate, that is not iambic pentameter.

[This message has been brought to you as a public service by Shades In the Dark]

:cool:

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

True, but neither was it intended to be. Considering my brain was by no means fully switched on, I deemed it not bad and very much on point.

Regards,

John Kettler

[agusto]

IIRC in CMSF there was visual representation of AP munition, most if not all Blue tanks had APFSDS available, but not (all of) the Red tanks. Might be wrong though, although I'm 100% sure there was visual representation of both HEAT and T-HEAT

Yes, i am pretty sure that CMSF makes that distinction between ammo types. But that makes sense, to distinguish between HEAT and kinec energy penetrator rounds and btw CMBN does it too to some degree! The Stummel halftrack for example fires HEAT rounds and that american HT mounted howitzer too, IIRC.

[John Kettler]

agusto,

You are correct, for such distinctions are essential and go all the way back to the CMBO Beta Demo. The German HEAT round for the Stummel wasn't well loved because of its poor effective range, a mere 400 meters as a result of a looping trajectory. Not sure what it was for the M8 HMC. Let's just say that the Wiki claims 6400 yards, but for actually hitting a tank, I'd be surprised were it 640, but I might be wrong. MV is close to the HE projectile weight, but the objective is altogether different. Talking a scarce round in a must hit situation to keep the guns from being overrun.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

(taps on virtual microphone and blows into it, listens but hears nothing)

"Is this thing working? Testing. Testing..."

Would someone at BFC please at least respond to the substantive issue I've raised? I'd think if nothing else this thread would rate some such acknowledgement.

Thanks!

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

What is the ordnance listing for the "3 inch BDF" to which you've referred? An "M" series designation would be best.

[John Kettler]

c3k,

M62A1 A.P.C., as I've been saying since post #1 in this thread and over in the Peanut Gallery thread. The 601st TD Battalion Operations Report for Operation Shingle used the descriptor you wanted clarified. Page 1 under and Page 2 under e) 2.

http://www.tankdestroyer.net/images/stories/ArticlePDFs/601st_TD_Jan_44_Rpt_of_Ops.pdf

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

(taps on virtual microphone and blows into it, listens but hears nothing)

"Is this thing working? Testing. Testing..."

Would someone at BFC please at least respond to the substantive issue I've raised?

Be patient, young Grasshopper! BFC appears to be busy with something at the moment; Steve hasn't posted at all for several days that I am aware of, and there have only been a tiny trickle of posts from other staff members. Apparently everybody over there is engaged in planning for the annual staff picnic. You are not being selectively ignored.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

They're not all engrossed in party planning, for MikeyD was just in the simulating armor w/o radio thread, and Steve was in the Panzer Armor thread. The 3-inch antitank ammo matter is important, which is why I keep hammering away on it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

They're not all engrossed in party planning, for MikeyD was just in the simulating armor w/o radio thread...

Is Mikey on staff? I thought he was just a beta tester, although that can cover a lot of ground. But by 'staff' I mean a salaried employee.

...and Steve was in the Panzer Armor thread.

And a couple of others too. Alas, I posted before I had read the whole board. But the fact is that prior to this morning, the statement made was true.

Michael