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

[Erwin.Rommel]

And further tests with 85mm vs Panther G shows more penetration on the glacis, then give us a explain,BFC!

[Alchenar]

As long as the OP started talking about the 122mm vs the KT, here's another translated Russian archive: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/is-2-vs-german-big-cats.html

Key juicy quotes:

"Shot #1. Target: upper front plate. Shell: 122 mm HE-fragmentation.

Result: spalling across an area 300 mm by 300 mm. The welding seam between the upper front plate and the machine gun port burst on 3/4 of its circumference. Internal bolts holding the machine gun ball were torn off. The welding seam between the upper front plate and the right side burst, and the right side was displaced by 5 mm. The tank caught fire internally."

"Shot #2. Target: upper front plate. Shell: 122 mm AP flat type. Propellant: reduced. Distance: 2700 m. Result: dent 165 mm by 260 mm, 60 mm deep. The shell ricocheted."

Well, looks like shooting at nearly 3 kilometers out with a reduced propellant charge won't do you any good. Let's consider a more realistic scenario.

"Shot #3. Target: upper front plate. Shell: 122 mm AP flat type. Distance: 500 m.

Result: dent 310 mm by 300 mm, 100 mm deep. On the rear side, a piece of armour 160 mm by 170 mm and 50 mm deep cracked off. The welding seam between the upper front plate and hull roof burst. All seams between the upper and lower front plates burst. The seam between the lower left hull and the left side of the hull burst. The driver's observation device was torn off."

"Shot #34. Target: turret front. Shell: 122 mm AP pointed type. Propellant: reduced. Distance: 2500 m.

Result: A piece 700 mm by 220 mm was torn off the turret front. The shell penetrated completely. The roof of the turret is missing a piece 460 mm by 300 mm. The rear of the turret has two cracks through its entire thickness, through the welding seam of the roof and left turret side, 1100 mm in length, and on the turret roof, 1350 mm in length."

[Volksgrenadier]

Alchenar,

I already had raised the question, why, if the Soviet systems with the 122 mm gun were so accurate, why were the optics only allowing 1500 m for exact targetting? Why could only experienced crews hit at arm's lenght of 1200 m?

As long as this is not answered, it is the best indication of a long range inferiority.

These results obviously do not show training or combat situations, but probably show the results of an already perfectly aimed gun: according to your partial list, every shot of a 122 is a hit. Even at 2700 m it takes only one shot!

But "strangely" then on the tanks in combat the Soviets used optics that reduced exact engagement ranges to 1500 m and according to one source I sited, already at 1200 m experienced crews were necessary to hit.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Ok did a quick test again...

MarkIVJ Early, fired on by T34/76 Early. 600m range.

9: Hit : Superstructure Front Hull. Plus 1: Armour spalling on Superstructure Front Hull.

And.. as a bonus.. .

1 Hit : Lower Front Hull. I did not see this happen.. but did see the silver, plate like ricochet mark.

No more I do.. on my machine, 76mm APBC ammo is not penetrating MarkIVJ Superstructure Front Hull. In all ways it’s performing perfectly... i.e. within the expected range of results.

No more I do... .

All the best,

Kip.

PS will get some more of my beta testing chums to run my test... see if they also get my results..

[Oddball_E8]

For anyone wanting to test the T-34 (early) vs the Pz IV G, I made a quick firing range scenario (of course it's easy to change the tanks if you want).

It's set to 600 meters.

http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/5161/details

[Oddball_E8]

I forgot to mention that in my testing I have not had a single front superstructure penetration. (but plenty of riccochets with spalling)

Almost all of the penetrations (and most kills) have been from front upper hull penetrations.

One or two were turret penetrations.

[Oddball_E8]

This picture also shows a very strange hit in the tests, how to explains this?

That's actually kinda simple.

Sometimes when a shell impacts at an extremely shallow slope like that, the engine just leaves a flat impact marker as if it was hit from straight above, but it has in fact been hit at a very shallow angle.

Happens in theatre of war too with their decals.

So the shell actually hit from the front but it looks like it hit from above. Am I making any sense here?

EDIT:

Aw hell, I drew a picture for ya.

[kipanderson]

Erwin, hi,

The Panther.. .

It’s a G and has flaws. (BTW... so does the A according to Lorrin. )

85mm glacis plate at 55 degrees. Given T/D ratio of 1:1 that gives an equivalent in millimetres of vertical plate of say 170mm. Soviet 85mm APBC ammo has a penetration against the vertical of 121mm at 500m.

So from your screenshots what we have happening is that about one in four strikes on the glacis plate are penetrating. What this means is that in about one in four strikes the Panther G’s glacis plate is experiencing a sudden decrease in protection levels of 29%. Penetration of 85mm projectile 121mm, protection level of glacis plate normally 170mm but in one in four cases failing against 85mm APBC round.

Given that we know the Panther’s glacis plate is flawed, I don’t think there is a problem.

You may not be using a range of 500m.. but this is just for illustration.

All interesting stuff..

All the best,

Kip.

[Melchior]

Are people on the internet still figuring out that armored warfare was far from an exact science? In both simulation and reality?

[Battlefront.com]

That's actually kinda simple.

Sometimes when a shell impacts at an extremely shallow slope like that, the engine just leaves a flat impact marker as if it was hit from straight above, but it has in fact been hit at a very shallow angle.

Happens in theatre of war too with their decals.

Yup. The artwork is a fixed shape and so a hit is a hit even if in real life it would be a shallow "gouge".

There are other limitations to the hit decals too. The biggest is in real life the shell would physically destroy light parts and then hit the base armor. For example a hit to the front of a PzIV with spare track. In CM the decal is applied to both the track and the armor behind it instead of the track being torn apart and the impact area on the hull fully exposed. Unfortunately dynamic deformation of models is almost impossible to do. "Scripted" deformation (i.e. "if a hit is here, blow this off in this specific way") is possible at great expense to us, so that's out for practical reasons.

Steve

[Oddball_E8]

Yup. The artwork is a fixed shape and so a hit is a hit even if in real life it would be a shallow "gouge".

There are other limitations to the hit decals too. The biggest is in real life the shell would physically destroy light parts and then hit the base armor. For example a hit to the front of a PzIV with spare track. In CM the decal is applied to both the track and the armor behind it instead of the track being torn apart and the impact area on the hull fully exposed. Unfortunately dynamic deformation of models is almost impossible to do. "Scripted" deformation (i.e. "if a hit is here, blow this off in this specific way") is possible at great expense to us, so that's out for practical reasons.

Steve

While you are commenting on the decals, could you comment on why the 20mm only shows up on Tanks' wheels and not the rest of the tanks? (Except pzIV's where the sides also get them, but not the front or rear)

[PanzerKat]

Not a test or anything, but while playing the scenario The Passage my mk IVH (late)'s were smoked by a single shot from T34-85 from a distance of approximately 1682 meters. Maybe some of you guys who are math wizards with ballistics can take a look and tell me what you think, but that just doesn't seem right. I would have thought that a long distance duel with mk IV against any T34 at 1500 + meters would be won by the Germans.

[Baneman]

Pretty much any tank with a decent gun has a chance to hit with the first shot. Not necessarily common at that range, but certainly possible.

At this time in the war, I wouldn't duel anything much with a PzIV. It's the proverbial "eggshell with a hammer".

My own usage of PzIV's consists of sneak, stalk, skulk and ambush. Any duelling I leave to the big cats.

[mvp7]

The with Pz IVH the German "advantage" mainly comes from better optics and training (not sure if either holds true at at late 1944 though). ZiS–S–53 has enough penetration at that range (even though it's pretty close call) so I don't see anything wrong with the result. Old 76mm T-34s are underdogs to anything bigger than Pz III but the 85mm is a beast.

Where were those panzers hit?

[Amizaur]

The Panther's muzzle velocity was roughly 1000 m/s, the 122 mm had only 800 m/s. 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).

(...)

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.

Do you want to say, that Tiger I tank with it's "dreaded" 8,8cm gun was "lobbing into target" ?

Tiger I 8.8 cm KwK 36 muzzle velocity was (according to source) 773 to 800m/s (so practiclally the same as IS-2s D-25T).

And it was praised for it's precision, good first-round hit capability out to 800-1200m, and very good accuracy on even greater ranges. So it can be done even with a gun that "lobs on target".

You also said, that Tigerfibel was talking about "flat gun trajectory". If Tiger's 800m/s means flat trajectory, why IS-2s 800m/s doesn't ?

It's even more flat, as the heavy 25kg shell has better ballistic coefficient and loses less speed with range .

Because of it's 780m/s muzzle velocity the KwK 36 was called "high velocity gun" in early 40s.

So certainly ~800m/s is not a low velocity gun even with 1944's standards.

T-34/85 gun is 790m/s, IS-2 122mm D-25T is 781-800m/s. So practically the same as Tiger's 88L56 or PzIVs 75L48.

The difference in practical accuracy can be explained by quality of the guns, ammo and gunsights, quality of gunners (but Russians had some skilled gunners too) and also by the fact that 122mm was much slower firing weapon, so it was impossible to do quick "fire and correct" routine and hit with second or third round.

If a 122mm shell whizzled just over a German tank or exploded ahead of him, the German tank surely tried to hide or relocate before the Russians managed to reload .

Su-100 gun was 900m/s so just as good as Panther's KwK42.

Firing at long ranges was not practical for many reasons. Very low chances for first-shot hit, reduced penetration, and for Russians engaging in a duel with German tanks at long ranges was not wise because German tanks were reloading MUCH faster so they could correct the fire quicker and had much better chance to hit with third or fourth round. Reloading 3 rounds in an IS-2 took about a minute at best, and in this time a German tank could either escape, or fire 6 times in return and almost certainly score a hit.

So long range duels with German tanks were not practiced (if not forbidden). Single long range shot from covered position and reverse into cover was more common. And single shot over 1500m has a small probability of first-round hit, even for a Tiger. Most famous long-range hits achieved b by on Tigers and Panthers were achieved by "fire and correct" method and it took numerous shells to finally get a hit. A long range first-round hit was really a lucky shot (with a help of good gun and very good gunner & range estimation, nevertheless still a lucky hit).

P.S. (Off-Topic)

Interesting quote from a link some of you just shared, aout Russian tests of a Panther tank:

"Agility

Trials determined that the planetary mechanism lets the tank turn well. Due to a hydraulic servo, the tank is easy to control.

The Panther's turning mechanism does not have the properties of a differential mechanism, which increases the tank's stability on straightaways and increases its off-road performance. This gives the tank an advantage over the Mk-IV Churchill and PzVI Tiger. In practice, it was impossible to turn the tank in place. Due to the difference of resistance on either side, the tank could only turn by locking one track and letting the track from the opposite side of the turn go forward or backward. Turning in place can only be done with equivalent resistance on both tracks, which in practice can be done very rarely."

So turning in place by "zero radius method" was not only rarely used, but also rarely possible in Panther. It could be done only when both tracks had the same resistance, so for example on a hard road or in hard uniform terrain.

Much more practical way of turning in place was to simply block one track, the same method as used by T-34 tanks. But this also has been risky, as one could throw a track or break something in the drive train... Much better and much more safe was to move and turn while moving, if only possible.

The funny fact is that the Russian engineer who tested the tank, liked not only Pather's suspension design, but h also liked the transmission design, and called it reliable as it didn't break or cause any problems during tests.

Just opposite to the engine, which was said to be advanced design but not reliable, breaking often because of not mature design. So, the Panther transmission COULD be reliable, if made in good quality using good materials .

[YankeeDog]

Not a test or anything, but while playing the scenario The Passage my mk IVH (late)'s were smoked by a single shot from T34-85 from a distance of approximately 1682 meters. Maybe some of you guys who are math wizards with ballistics can take a look and tell me what you think, but that just doesn't seem right. I would have thought that a long distance duel with mk IV against any T34 at 1500 + meters would be won by the Germans.

Your impressions are incorrect.

T-34/85's main gun with 1944 APBC easily penetrates pretty much any plate on a PzIV out to well over 1500m; it's only around 2000m that the 85mm starts having difficulty penetrating the thicker sections of the PzIV's frontal armor, and it penetrates the PzIV's thin 50mm turret front armor at basically any range the gunner is likely to be able to identify the target. Going the other way, the PzIV's 75mm KwK40 L/48 starts to have difficulty penetrating some sections of the frontal plates on a T-34/85 at ranges 1500m+. So strictly in terms of armor penetration, the T-34/85 wins the long range duel -- the T-34's gun can penetrate the PzIVs armor out to ranges longer than the PzIV can penetrate the T-34/85's armor.

Muzzle velocity for the two guns are about the same, so ballistic trajectory is similar; if anything the T-34's 85mm trajectory is slightly flatter due to the heavier shell. Heavier shell is also less affected by crosswind, and provides better after armor effect on penetrations.

The only advantage the PzIV would have at these ranges would from the supposed superior German optics. Opinions on just how superior German optics were compared to 1944 Soviet optics are all over the map. Regardless of where one stands on the optics issue, considering the PzIV's substantially inferior armor, I would not rely upon any optical advantage to carry the day.

Overall, the PzIV is a 1936 design that was seriously outclassed by 1944. Upgunning it kept it useful, but it really couldn't go toe-to-toe with anything like a T-34/85.

[Skwabie]

Yep use Pz IVs as assault guns for infantry support, in front of Stummels etc. They're not good for front line tank killing duty.

Actually for a lack of IFVs in ww2 they are duly needed in that. The platoon halftracks are better off given a small target cover circle to keep the gunner's head down, so they do not attract small arms fire at all and only serve as battlefield taxis. Except the 251/17s for Plt HQs, those are nice. The gunner's protected in all around armor so it can get close to enemy positions and lay down fire. Also they shoot at aircraft.

[Michael Emrys]

The funny fact is that the Russian engineer who tested the tank, liked not only Pather's suspension design, but h also liked the transmission design, and called it reliable as it didn't break or cause any problems during tests.

He may also have been comparing it, at least in his own mind, to Soviet gearboxes which had a short service life and needed frequent replacement if the tank happened not to be destroyed in combat.

Michael

[Oddball_E8]

Not a test or anything, but while playing the scenario The Passage my mk IVH (late)'s were smoked by a single shot from T34-85 from a distance of approximately 1682 meters. Maybe some of you guys who are math wizards with ballistics can take a look and tell me what you think, but that just doesn't seem right. I would have thought that a long distance duel with mk IV against any T34 at 1500 + meters would be won by the Germans.

Considering the fact that shermans could take out panzer IV's reliably at very long ranges, I wouldn't think that a T-34 armed with the 85mm gun would have any trouble taking it out. As long as it hits.

[Bastables]

Considering the fact that shermans could take out panzer IV's reliably at very long ranges, I wouldn't think that a T-34 armed with the 85mm gun would have any trouble taking it out. As long as it hits.

Just played The passage as soviets, PIV were also able to kill my T34/85s at ranges over 1500m. I ended up with all 14 T34's lost vs 7 PIV killed and one crack PIV survivor. Whomever spots and begins shooting first generally wins.

[Volksgrenadier]

Hi Amizaur,

good reply. Good argument against my velocity argument.

[Amizaur]

Thanks Volksgrenadier

[Erwin.Rommel]

Just do some statistical tests with 8 x T-34/85 m1944(early) vs 8 x PantherG, the range is about 600m

8 rounds of tests

Among 131 hits on the upper front hull

9 complete penetration and 4 partial penetration and among the 13 complete or partial penetration, only 4 on the edge of glacis or near the bow maching gun, all other happened in the center place of glacis.

My friends did the same test in the CMBB, no penetration on the upper front hull at all, Then which one is right? the CMBB or CMRT?Was the glacis of PantherG's Armor really that flaw? As far as I know, there are no resouces of WWII armor and ammo including the lorrin's great book which said 85mm APBC have a high probability of penetration on the glacis of PantherG, then what is basis that you make the glacis of pantherG that flaw in the CMRT?

So, Don't avoid these debates,give us some explains, BFC!

[Erwin.Rommel]

Do the same tests with PantherA(mid)

among 97 hits on the upper hull front, only 1 partial penetration.

[akd]

7% is high probability?