The lower front hull of JPIV and pantherG shows vast different protection in the game

[Erwin.Rommel]

I played some battle with JPIV against Sherman, I always have some bad experience that my JPIV always easily been knock out by 75mm though the penetration or partial penetration in the lower front hull. But I have never seen any penetration in the lower front hull of Panther G which should have the same protection with JPIV(50mm/50). So I did a simple test with these two vehicle against 75mm fire from 300m. For the panther, among 30 hits on the lower front hull, 0 penetration or partial penetration was achieved just some occasional armor spalling with no harm. But for the JPIV, things are completely different, among 30 hits on the lower front,10 penetration or partial penetration in the lower front and the rest non-penetrated hit always cause armor spalling and the JPIV always end with been knock out in the test. The game manual don't mention any armor flaw in the lower font hull of JPIV and the 75mm can not penetrate the thickness of 50mm/50 theoretically. So how to explain the vast difference?

Ps: I used the British Sherman that fire AP without explosion charge in the test, the AP with explosion charge used by US seems achieved less penetration in the same situation in the further tests, Is that means the British used m72 AP which more effective against rolled homogeneous armor and US used the m61 APCBC which more effective against face harden armor in the game? but this still can not explain the difference between the pantherG and JPIV.

[slysniper]

A interesting find, I am not a armor grog, but it would be interesting to get some additional input as to what might be happening. But a few tank models have had bad data for certain plates so there is the chance you have found a model which has incorrect plate data at that location.

It sounds like maybe there is only a total of 50mm there, the results make more sence for that amount of plating.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Good catch! I haven't tested this myself, but assuming your results are correct that would seem to indicate a mistake in the lower nose armor, which is actually 50mm at 55°*. That is equivalent to 126mm at 0°, well beyond what could be penetrated by M61a1 with the HE filler removed at 300 meters (about 96mm).

* For all Jpz IV except the IV/70 (A), which is not in the game for some reason.

[Childress]

Sounds like a mere data entry snafu. If true.

[ASL Veteran]

Could the presence of the gun in the middle of the forward plate weaken the plate as compared to the Panther tank's front plate? :confused:

[Freyberg]

Well spotted.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Could the presence of the gun in the middle of the forward plate weaken the plate as compared to the Panther tank's front plate? :confused:

Wrong plate. The plate in question is on the lower front hull.

[Fizou]

Nice catch!

[MikeyD]

I'm wondering if the difference has anything to do with how the vehicle is being deployed. If you're seeking hull-down reverse slope positions you're increasing the armor angle of the upper hull while decreasing the angle on the lower. And the low -mounted gun would mean you need to pull the vehicle farther forward to clear the slope. If your on the crest of a ridge with the slope angled back 10 degrees that lower plate is now 50 at 40 instead of 50 at 50.

[Battlefront.com]

Please don't post pictures from Aberdeen Proving Ground. Their condition depresses me

Steve

[xellos]

So ,will this "bug"be fixed ,or it had already been fixed in the patch 211?

[LukeFF]

Please don't post pictures from Aberdeen Proving Ground. Their condition depresses me

Yeah, it's always sad to see the sad shape of their collection. On the contrary is Latrun where, despite the whole collection being outside, most of what's on display is in very good shape

[MikeyD]

Wasn't Aberdeen entirely dismantled and carted off awhile ago? Didn't the museum move to Ft Lee Virginia? Is there anything left of the APG collection? I understand the museum had no affiliation with the Army since the 1960s, the whole thing had been 'privatized'.

[Rosseau]

Not when I visited 4-5 years ago. Had a heck of a time with the guard letting me through.

[Saferight]

The collection at Aberdeen has all been all shipped off to the U.S. Army Ordnance Training and Heritage Center at Ft. Lee an some to the National Armor and Cavalry Museum at Ft. Benning. I think most of the collection is in storage to be refurbished or just waiting to find a home. Confusing the hell out of many I would say.

[Apocal]

snip

Do you consider this a legitimate issue or do you need more testing done?

[MikeyD]

I suppose Charles can be queried on the topic. Asked if the armor values are 50 at 50 like they ought. Only he has access to the in-game specs.

[Davek555]

Wasn't Aberdeen entirely dismantled and carted off awhile ago? Didn't the museum move to Ft Lee Virginia? Is there anything left of the APG collection? I understand the museum had no affiliation with the Army since the 1960s, the whole thing had been 'privatized'.

Yes i think they moved everything to Fort Lee, VA a couple of years ago. I only live about 20 minutes from Aberdeen and used to love going there and walking among the old tanks and through the museum. I am fortunate to have taken quite a few pictures. But Steve is right, most of the armor was not kept in very good condition.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Asked if the armor values are 50 at 50 like they ought.

Those are the values given by the OP, but I don't know where he got them. In fact, after looking around I'm not entirely sure what they should be.

WWII Ballistics - Armor and Gunnery lists the lower nose armor as 51mm @ 55° for the Jpz IV and 51mm @ 57° for the Jpz IV/70 (V). This should be invulnerable to US and British 75mm APCBC at 300 meters.

However, the Achtung Panzer website lists the lower nose armor as 50mm @ 45°, which is enough of a difference to make it very vulnerable at 300 meters (equivalent to 83.5mm @ 0° vs 115.3mm for 55° slope).

The oddball values given in WWII Ballistics suggest they were measured rather than quoted from a spec sheet, but I cannot say for sure which is correct.

[CM-Kane]

Hi guys,

as a further source: Spielbergers book "Leichte Jagdpanzer".

There is an overview of all armourplates of the JPz IV and JPz IV/70(V).

lower nose armor is 50mm @ 55°

[Vanir Ausf B]

Just to confirm the OP's observations I just did a quick test. US Sherman 75s vs Jpz IV 70s at 300 meters. Out of 28 hits on the lower front hull 21 created spalling and the other 7 were partial penetrations. That suggests the armor value is modeled at close to the maximum penetration of US 75mm at that range, which is about 84mm. That would be roughly consistent with the Achtung Panzer website, per my above post. However...

Hi guys,

as a further source: Spielbergers book "Leichte Jagdpanzer".

There is an overview of all armourplates of the JPz IV and JPz IV/70(V).

lower nose armor is 50mm @ 55°

That makes 2 fairly authoritative sources saying the game has it wrong vs. one website saying the opposite. At the very least it may be worth asking Charles to double check his sources.

[Erwin.Rommel]

Just to confirm the OP's observations I just did a quick test. US Sherman 75s vs Jpz IV 70s at 300 meters. Out of 28 hits on the lower front hull 21 created spalling and the other 7 were partial penetrations. That suggests the armor value is modeled at close to the maximum penetration of US 75mm at that range, which is about 84mm. That would be roughly consistent with the Achtung Panzer website, per my above post. However...

That makes 2 fairly authoritative sources saying the game has it wrong vs. one website saying the opposite. At the very least it may be worth asking Charles to double check his sources.

If you used the British 75mm or 75mm used by early version of US Sherman which don't have blast charge, you will see more penetration

[Vanir Ausf B]

I am aware that the British 75mm ammo without the burster charge has higher penetration. But there is some uncertainty about how much higher. It's in the 10-14% range, but I don't know exactly what value the game uses. There is more certainty about the penetration of US 75mm ammo so that is what I used to test.

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

Please cite a source for the to me astonishing assertion of 10-14% better penetration for CW plugged M61 vs standard U.S. version with burster charge. So far, I haven't found anything to support it in our own John D. Salt's assemblage of WW II antitank weapon penetration data.

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2pen3.pdf

My dim recollection was that the delta was somewhere around 3%. I suspect the data are in the near mythic World War II Ballistics, by our own Bird and Livingston.

Robert Livingston or anyone owning World War II Ballistics,

If you're still around, would you please check your co-written/your book and let us know what's said in there about the penetration of CW 75mm plugged APC vs standard U.S. M61 APC.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

I just got word from the horse's mouth that Jpz-IV had been intentionally given 'mediocre quality' armor in the game. Charles had reliable references citing less-than-optimal armor being used to fabricate Jpz IVs. So one vehicle's 50mm at 55 degrees is not the same as another's. It seems there are several different levels of plate quality that can be applied to a given vehicle. That being said, Charles is reconsidering the matter.