Jump to content

The german tank be weaken or the Russian ammo be strengthen in the CMRT?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do believe there is some problem with where the AI aims at. For targeting IS-2s I have noted for instance, that when shooting from an 90° angle it aims at the very rear end of the turret, which is a very bad spot to aim at, of course.

Same probably for IS-1s, generally the TacAI aims pretty high on these two.

With ISU-122 I have noticed, that the AI aims pretty low, I've seen two consecutive shots go through UNDER the vehicle and hitting the ground behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first got the game, I played the basic training part of the tutorial just for giggles, and something I noticed struck me as odd. Quite often the Soviet tanks were getting complete penetrations of the German Pz. IVs. And by "complete penetration", I mean that their shots were going all the way through the vehicles and coming out the other sides to hit the ground maybe 50m behind. This means that the shots were passing through two layers of armor as well as two layers of side skirts (granted those would have presented negligible resistance) and whatever equipment inside the tank would have intercepted the path of the shot. So, a lot of metal. These were only 76mm guns doing the firing, and even though the range was short—about 200-250m—that strikes me as a lot of penetration.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, A-19 penetrated Tiger-2 turret armor from 1000-1500 metres. D-25 had the same ballistics.

PzVIB_5.jpg

http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/PzVIB/blin.php

The tests of Kubinka are the well-knowned un-reliable tests of the WWII gun and armor, because the Russians used all kinds of guns repeatly shoot the same place(especially the upper hull front and turret front) of Kingtiger 102 and achieved the penetration.

And according to the lorrin's book, the russian 122mm can not penetrate the turret front of Kingtiger even at point blant as showed in the CMBB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more going on under the hood of this game than we could possibly guess. Recently discussing with Charles the armor quality of Hetzer (mediocre) he happened to mention that the Brinell hardness numbers were already plugged in. REALLY? Brinell hardness numbers are part of the game calculations? Wow... just wow. :eek: :o

I would love Steve or Charles to put out a summary of the "under the hood calculations" not with so much details it gets all the grogs complaining it is not 100% accurate but just to get a picture of what goes into the calcs. It was more transparent in CM1 days and maybe newer fans don't appreciate the work that has gone into modelling this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Analyzing the results of those battles, the GBTU came to the conclusion that
the armament and protection of the JS-1 didn't correspond to its intended tasks and was inferior to the German heavy tanks.
GBTU recommended increased armor protection and rearming the JS-1 with a more powerful weapon.

...

Further, after the first encounters between the JS-2 and German heavy tanks, it turned out that the sharp-nosed 122 mm APHE round - BR-471 - could only penetrate the frontal armour of a Panther up to 600-700 metres. The less powerful frontal armour of a Tiger could be penetrated at distances up to
1200 metres. However,
at such distances only very well trained and experienced gunners could score a hit
.
The vertical armour of a Tiger I, although thicker than that of a Panther, was more easily defeated by the sharp-nosed projectile of the JS-2 Main Gun, whilst it often ricocheted off the sloped armour of a Panther.

1200 m is arm's lenght for German guns of that time!!! While the 122 mm gun already had problems to hit at 1200 m.

It should be mentioned that the velocity of the projectile is the most important factor to increase the grenade's energy with calibre.

Ekin (= mv²/2) increases with square of velocity while calibre increases kinetic energy only proportionally.

That's the reason why the Soviets needed a 122 mm monster, because they could not produce the necessary barrels to achieve a high enough velocity for better penetration.

While calibre is important for high explosive capabilities, because volume is increased with calibre by cubing and the volume determines the amount of explosive.

The IS-1 was pretty much the same as the IS-2 but with the 85mm gun instead, so the armour should be the same.

In February of 1944 the Central Scientific Research Institute No.40 (TsNII-40) was delegated the task of researching the armour protection of the JS-2 heavy tank. The research showed that, given the existing shape of the front of its hull, the tank would be invulnerable to penetration by any German 75-mm and 88-mm AP projectiles only if the hull's armour thickness were increased to at least 145-150mm (i.e. an addition of 20-30 mm thickness).

On the recommendation of the TsNII-40, new specifications for armour tempering and
a new design for the front of the JS-2's hull were developed. The new hull, with a straightened glacis, preserved the same armour thickness while the plug-type driver's hatch was removed, greatly increasing its protection from the front.
The glacis was sloped at 60 degrees from the vertical, which resulted in the German 88 mm KwK 36 gun being unable to penetrate it even at point-blank range when fired at a ±30 degrees angle.

I hope the results I saw in this scenario were not representative. If they would be, then the models are way off if Soviet guns have equal or even better accuracy and optics.

The soviets needed a 122 mm calibre to reach the German gun's penetration capabilities of the 88 mm gun while the accuracy was never achieved anyway.

Weaker optics in combination with a lower velocity, means a more parabolic trajectory and therefore the distance must be known better, much better, to hit.

While the German gunner only roughly needed to know the distance and immediately had the correct visor and therefore usually achieved first shot hits, guns with lower velocity had eponentially difficulties to achieve first hits, if the distance was not known prior (but I guess this knowledge of reference point distances is not modelled in CM while optics are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about armor strength, but PzIV seems to be much weaker in spotting than T-34 with 76mm gun. While playtesting a scenario I've seen many times how a static PzIV in ambush position behind some trees does not see how a T34 drives ahead and stops. After a moment it spots the PzIV about 45 degrees from its driving direction. Turret turns and PzIV is killed before it sees the T34 that is almost exactly ahead of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Panthers and Pz IVs have always been consistently weak for me. However it could also be a run of bad luck.

I think bad luck. One of my most memorable moments during play testing was in Studienka. I had several Panthers and PzIVs in a valley and the came under fire from a ISU152 (or it could have been 122 I honestly forget). It was an awesome exchange. From over 1000m the German tanks could not reliably see the Soviets and clearly the Soviets could not see all the German tanks but as I tried to maneuver to see the attackers I area targeted the woods where the shots were coming from. In the end the tanks in the valley never spotted the attackers after a few initial moments but the Knocked out one just by chance. In the end I had to call in a smoke barrage so the tanks in the valley could get out from under the attack. Later I sent other forces to that location and discovered the KO'ed tank I never saw. It turns out there were two of them.

Anyway that was not the point one Panther shrugged off three hits to its front and turret front - the gouge marks were really cool before finally dying to the fourth hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

testing games what im done. i tjust say ower 1km german tanks dont have any problems to destroy soviet tanks . only is2 are harder to kill and had to go closer . but example panther can take tons of shot 500m by T34/85 later model. Only weak spot is loverhull armor but if you drive panther to hull down position , problem solved then .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest that everyone that feels that the russian tanks are "overpowered" make a firing range scenario where they face off with german tanks at the ranges of 600m, 1k, 2k and 3k.

You'll quickly realize that whilst the russians occationally get a kill at long ranges, it's usually a partial penetration and it's usually after the germans have destroyed most of the russian tanks already.

The germans have a huge advantage in accuracy, but they also penetrate the russian tanks with ease at even 3k distances.

I feel that most of what is being brought up in this thread are anecdotal (as is my examples) and feels like it stems a bit from the mythos of the germans being superior in all ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot make that conclusion based on anecdotes.

I think bad luck. One of my most memorable moments during play testing was in Studienka. I had several Panthers and PzIVs in a valley and the came under fire from a ISU152 (or it could have been 122 I honestly forget). It was an awesome exchange. From over 1000m the German tanks could not reliably see the Soviets and clearly the Soviets could not see all the German tanks but as I tried to maneuver to see the attackers I area targeted the woods where the shots were coming from. In the end the tanks in the valley never spotted the attackers after a few initial moments but the Knocked out one just by chance. In the end I had to call in a smoke barrage so the tanks in the valley could get out from under the attack. Later I sent other forces to that location and discovered the KO'ed tank I never saw. It turns out there were two of them.

Anyway that was not the point one Panther shrugged off three hits to its front and turret front - the gouge marks were really cool before finally dying to the fourth hit.

I've said this but I'll say it again. The refusal of BFC to publicize their in-game data has made it excruciatingly difficult to assert the vehicle's performance from the user side.

All the posts in this thread are again made by us chasing our tails, since no one has a clear clue. As are all the other armor related threads before this one.

The tenacious guys among us like Vanir have endeavored to do various vigorous tests, but it costs an insurmountable amount of time, and due to the in-depth nature of them, the end results are not easily understood by many.

Another means of reference is CMx1, but as stated before and evidently, much has changed.

This is my major gripe with CMx2 so far: the nontransparent in-game data and mechanisms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I ran a King Tiger versus IS-2 simply shootout and the result was as expected. After rate of fire matters statistically the Germans win, killing all the ISes, although not without losses (1 out of 8).

Ballistics wise the result was what I expected.

The only game problem was TacAI code giving nonsensical movement commands, including turns to show side armor to the enemy and ruining hit chances by premature movements. And popping smoke when the enemy benefits more from that than the popper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tests of Kubinka are the well-knowned un-reliable tests of the WWII gun and armor, because the Russians used all kinds of guns repeatly shoot the same place(especially the upper hull front and turret front) of Kingtiger 102 and achieved the penetration.

And according to the lorrin's book, the russian 122mm can not penetrate the turret front of Kingtiger even at point blant as showed in the CMBB

I see only 2 hits at turret.

At hull there were multiple hits, no penetration with except of welded seams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1200 m is arm's lenght for German guns of that time!!! While the 122 mm gun already had problems to hit at 1200 m.

The soviets needed a 122 mm calibre to reach the German gun's penetration capabilities of the 88 mm gun while the accuracy was never achieved anyway.

Sure not. Tests showed that D-25 accuracy at 1000m was 270x170mm, while Kwk 43 showed 210x260mm.

Of course shooting at 1200m requires experienced crew, as for IS, as for Tiger.

While battle at Ogledów there were several >1000m hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, personally, I'm okay with Battlefront keeping what is essentially proprietary data and detailed methods, well, proprietary. They are the ones who've invested the time and $$$ into the game engine, and might not care to post the data and the details of their handling used in the game where someone else could use that information to create a competitor with much less expense.

I've just played one scenario in CMRT so far, which had a bunch of armor in it, and there were surprises (and what I felt were reasonable outcomes) going both ways - a MkIV taking out a 122 head-on at a good range after repeated hits, and a Panther that died to a SU-76, again at longer range, again after repeated hits (IIRC, there were 7 ricochets).

Are they modeling fatigue from consecutive shots, or was the kill due (finally) to weak point hits? I would hope that it could be either. As much as they track other data for the engine to consume, fatigue on a certain armor plate doesn't seem like a stretch given that we now have hit decals, which I assume are placed at impact point. From my game, how much longer did I expect that Panther to survive -- not much. Seven hits on the front glacis from a higher elevation -- not good odds in my book.

I hope there is some bit of alchemy going on, since non-penetrating hits still have an effect on the armor that remains. Having seen photos of some non-penetrating hits on a Panther glacis by (IIRC) blunt nosed ballistic capped shot, there was a gouge in the glacis that you could put your fist in. How resistant is that spot now that 30mm of metal had been shoveled away?

Unless at the extremes of gun vs armor, I like the inherent, sometimes surprising, variability in outcomes. On the mass, results are predictable, for a specific instance, a bit less so. It keeps the game from becoming too formulaic in playing approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot make that conclusion based on anecdotes.

It was not an anecdote. I've been testing a scenario. AI tanks move according to AI plans so I know in advance where they go, so it's easy to test the same situation time and time again.

I've seen this same case several times and the moving T-34 has spotted much better than the static PzIV. Maybe I need to test more whether buttoned status matters here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and a Panther that died to a SU-76, again at longer range, again after repeated hits (IIRC, there were 7 ricochets).

Damages of Panther tanks examined by the commission NIIBT Poligon from 20 to 28 July 1943

http://english.battlefield.ru/damages-of-panther-tanks-dp1.html

These numbers indicate the Panther was practically impenetrable from the front for the 76 mm and almost impenetrable for the 85 mm.

The successful use of 85 mm in this statistics almost exclusively against side and rear is an indication, that it was necessary for these guns to let the Panthers pass by to have any success!

In the case of an acceptable frontal performance of these guns, there should be more successful frontal and less side and rear engagements.

Just like the German 37 mm ATG (tank-knock-on unit) needed to avoid frontal engagements and could only be used against flanks and rears against T34s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the date. Kursk. The Soviets were still using mostly uncapped AP rather than the more effective APBC. And their metallurgy was less advanced in '43.

However, it is interesting that the Panther glacis thickness is listed at 85mm. It makes me wonder what thickness Red Thunder has it at under the hood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure not. Tests showed that D-25 accuracy at 1000m was 270x170mm, while Kwk 43 showed 210x260mm.

Of course shooting at 1200m requires experienced crew, as for IS, as for Tiger.

Maybe it's a language barrier, but I don't mean the gun's accuracy, I mean the overall accuracy to hit.

The Panther's muzzle velocity was roughly 1000 m/s, the 122 mm had only 800 m/s (that's a whopping 44% percent more kinetic energy per kilogram from the Panther's gun!!!).

800 m/s from the Soviet 122mm is almost as slow as German HE grenades.

But with the much heavier grenade from the Soviet 122 mm, this is more like lobbing into target, which makes a very good target range estimation necessary to hit a spot, compared to a straight line from the Panther (or the German 88 mm guns).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference in projectile drop of an 800 m/s vs. a 1000 m/s projectile at 1000m is fairly minor. Certainly not nonexistent, but minor. And also bear in mind that assuming both projectiles have equivalent aerodynamic efficiency, a larger, heavier projectile loses velocity more slowly over distance -- since mass goes up relative to volume (cube rule), but air resistance goes up relative to cross-sectional area (square rule), if the aerodynamic efficiency remains the same, as the caliber of projectiles increases, their mass increases faster then air resistance does and they "carry" better over distance.

All things considered, I would expect a slight advantage in actual combat accuracy with the 88mm/L71 over the 122mm A-19 at 1000m. But I would expect this difference to be difficult to perceive over statistical noise, and other factors, such as relative target size, to be more dominant. Target size is particularly important to consider in the IS-2 or T-34 vs. Panther matchup -- the Panther's gun might have a slightly flatter trajectory, but the Panther's frontal cross-section is a fair bit larger than either the T-34's or IS-2's. So the Russian tanks have a bigger target to shoot at in a head-to-head fight and this is going to cancel out some of the accuracy advantage of the German gun.

Now, push the range out to 2000m, and the flatter trajectory of the 88mm should become a stronger factor.

What you will find in CMRT is that the higher ROF of the German 75 & 88m vs. the Russian 122mm is more important at typical combat ranges than any modest advantage in accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damages of Panther tanks examined by the commission NIIBT Poligon from 20 to 28 July 1943

http://english.battlefield.ru/damages-of-panther-tanks-dp1.html

These numbers indicate the Panther was practically impenetrable from the front for the 76 mm and almost impenetrable for the 85 mm.

A quick read and I only noticed 1 instance of 2 front glacis hits on a single tank, none penetrating. Given that the tanks were taken out/abandonned/destroyed by some other penetration, we don't know the effects of sustained hits to that single piece of plate.

I didn't stop to look at the hit decals (but I'll remember to do that next time), or back track the flights other than "Crap, they're up on that hill", but there was down angle involved from the shooter, which would reduce the effective angle of the plate also, mitigating some of the protection.

Was I disappointed to lose that Panther -- yeah. Did I think it unrealistic -- no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference in projectile drop of an 800 m/s vs. a 1000 m/s projectile at 1000m is fairly minor. Certainly not nonexistent, but minor. And also bear in mind that assuming both projectiles have equivalent aerodynamic efficiency, a larger, heavier projectile loses velocity more slowly over distance -- since mass goes up relative to volume (cube rule), but air resistance goes up relative to cross-sectional area (square rule), if the aerodynamic efficiency remains the same, as the caliber of projectiles increases, their mass increases faster then air resistance does and they "carry" better over distance.

All things considered, I would expect a slight advantage in actual combat accuracy with the 88mm/L71 over the 122mm A-19 at 1000m. But I would expect this difference to be difficult to perceive over statistical noise, and other factors, such as relative target size, to be more dominant. Target size is particularly important to consider in the IS-2 or T-34 vs. Panther matchup -- the Panther's gun might have a slightly flatter trajectory, but the Panther's frontal cross-section is a fair bit larger than either the T-34's or IS-2's. So the Russian tanks have a bigger target to shoot at in a head-to-head fight and this is going to cancel out some of the accuracy advantage of the German gun.

Now, push the range out to 2000m, and the flatter trajectory of the 88mm should become a stronger factor.

What you will find in CMRT is that the higher ROF of the German 75 & 88m vs. the Russian 122mm is more important at typical combat ranges than any modest advantage in accuracy.

YankeeDog, do you have any numbers that support that? I do not agree.

Have you read the Tiger- and Panther-Fibels? They explain very well, how important a flat trajectory is. The flat trajectory allows the gunner to use a visor that only roughly matches the real distance of the target but still score a hit at certain ranges.

Lower velocity trajectories in my understanding always mean a more curved trajectory. And that means exact range estimation becomes more important to switch to the correct visor for that range to have a chance to hit at all.

I highly doubt that the Soviet 122 guns had the same combat accuracy as the German guns, with their low velocity and poor optics.

I found several indications on the net, that support that:

The 121.92-mm gun had great potential, although the gun's abilities were somewhat reduced by the available projectiles and its lack of accuracy.

Construction of the ISU-122 and ISU-152 is the same except for the gun mounting, sights and ammunition stowage. The A-19S or D-25S cannons of the ISU-122 had 18 degrees elevation angle and 30 rounds of ammunition (the ISU-152 had 20 degrees and 20 rounds respectively). The A-19S cannon was equipped with an ST-18 (СТ-18) telescopic sight and the D-25S cannon was equipped with a TSh-17 (ТШ-17) sight.
Both types of sights had
maximal exact targeting distance
of 1.5 km
(
the ISU-152 could manage only 900 m
). Maximum direct fire range of the A-19S or D-25S cannons was 5 km, much further than these sights' targeting abilities.
For direct or indirect firing on distances over 1.5 km the gunner used the second, panoramic sight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-122

This is a strong indication of a curved, not a flat trajectory and bad accuracy at that range already.

I presented Battlefireld.ru already, that mentions that at 1200 m experienced crews were necessary to achieve a hit.

Then there is the notion of the 1500 m as maximum exact engagement distance. Which I find even more remarkable, because the huge projectile at that distance still has enormous energy to penetrate lots of enemy armor. Such a restriction of the optics to 1500 m max would be absurd, if the gun/optics/chassis would allow good accuracy at that range!

This is a strong indication, that combat accuracy was only present up to battlefield.ru's mentioned 1200 m, and they fit with the mentioned 1500 m the maximum for the exact optics.

Comparison to the German 88/L71:

Hit percentage @1500m : Training 95%, Combat 61%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_43

These numbers mean from 10 shots, under combat conditions, six are hitting at first shot a tank in the open if the range is known!

While the Soviet 122 mm gun plus optics plus mechanics is already at the maximum to even achieve a hit (the low ROF and low ammo count make things even worse).

Looking at greater distances the huge quality difference between the Soviet flagship gun and the German becomes even more obvious:

@2500 m: training: 74%, combat: 30%.

That's already 1 km beyond the exact engagement range of the Soviet 122 mm calibre!

And how about the smaller gun from the Panther, the 75mm/L70?

The same good quality:

@1500 m: training: 100%, practice: 72%

@2000 m: training: 92%, practice: 49%

@2500 m: training: 73%, practice: 29%

...

These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first round hit was much lower than shown in these tables.
However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown as the Practice data.

http://www.oocities.org/desertfox1891/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html

The above sources support very well, that no adequate Soviet guns for the high accuracy German guns existed.

Everything indicates they needed a 122 mm monster gun, because they were not capable to produce an equivalent to the German (or the British 17 pdr.) high velocity guns.

When they noticed their 85 mm version was not strong enough, why didn't they increase muzzle velocity like everyone else? Smaller calibres are easier to handle than bigger ones.

The answer to me is obvious: they somehow lacked the technology to produce high velocity flat trajectory guns (I could imagine their production facilities did not have precise enough tools and machinery).

If you cannot achieve the 1000 - 1100 m/s that would be sufficient, then increasing the calibre remains the only solution.

One must not forget, that from 1945 on the Cold War started and the Communist propaganda was not interested to discuss any inferiority in technology compared to defeated Germany and the Western powers.

In 1945 a posing in technological achievements had begun. So one should not be surprised to find no explicit studies mentioning the inferiority of Soviet muzzle velocity and the incapability to increase it. I guess under the Communist's Gulag system I would have praised the capabillity of the 122 mm rockthrower, when it hit a tank @2000 m by accident, too. ;):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above sources support very well, that no adequate Soviet guns for the high accuracy German guns existed.

Everything indicates they needed a 122 mm monster gun, because they were not capable to produce an equivalent to the German (or the British 17 pdr.) high velocity guns.

When they noticed their 85 mm version was not strong enough, why didn't they increase muzzle velocity like everyone else? Smaller calibres are easier to handle than bigger ones.

The answer to me is obvious: they somehow lacked the technology to produce high velocity flat trajectory guns (I could imagine their production facilities did not have precise enough tools and machinery).

If you cannot achieve the 1000 - 1100 m/s that would be sufficient, then increasing the calibre remains the only solution.

One must not forget, that from 1945 on the Cold War started and the Communist propaganda was not interested to discuss any inferiority in technology compared to defeated Germany and the Western powers.

In 1945 a posing in technological achievements had begun. So one should not be surprised to find no explicit studies mentioning the inferiority of Soviet muzzle velocity and the incapability to increase it. I guess under the Communist's Gulag system I would have praised the capabillity of the 122 mm rockthrower, when it hit a tank @2000 m by accident, too. ;):D

Jaaa, Sowjetische Untermensch! Keine gutte guns arbeiten!!1!

On a more serious note, the things people say 70 years after...

Please, stop making a fool of yourself.

Have a nice and a very productive german superior muzzle velocity day. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...