HVAP ammo availabilty

[roqf77]

well the flak 88 failed up to point blank against the churchill to It had to use apcr.

a churchill took 4 direct hits from the l70 75mm at 500 yards and was repaired and returned to the field.

By us figures, the l 70 75mm gun penetrates about 175mm at 500 yards.

This is capable of penetrating the turret, and the upper hull at 500 yards with more than one hit.

By german armour plate(again higher quality than the us)

The l 71 88mm penetrated 225mm of armour at 100 yards 207mm at 500 yards and 190mm at 1,000 yards.

at 800 yards it would pen about 196mm of armour.

More than capable of penetrating the tuuret and upper hull of the jumbo, if it had german quality armour(which it didnt).

As for your example of the tigers turret it had a bhn of 283.

this would make the turret about effective as 140mm of us armour, still less effective than the jumbo's turret. and notcible less effective than the gun mantlet.

[SadSack]

Hi roqf77

I want to first start of by mentioning that you keep refering to the German armor plate being of a higher standard or hardness in comparison with American armor plate. That would only be correct if you were talking about pre 1944 German armor plating or about the armor plating found on a Tiger I tank. It is common knowledge that the quality and or the hardness of German armor plating took an absolute nose dive from early 1944 onwards. It was either way to brittle by US standards or way to soft. A captured Jagdpanther even yeilded a bhn of only 210 on the face plate ! .. In all actuality the overall armor quality and relative hardness was better on the US and UK tanks from mid 1944 and onwards. Only in the case of the Tiger I tanks did they keep their original high standards of quality and hardness. About the others, It's just a flat out myth. The quality of the armor plating that Jumbo would have to punch thru would likely not even be as good as theirs!!!

And I repeat. Thick frontal armor plating that was also well sloped, as was the case with the Jumbo was very difficult for AP shot to overcome. It's not as simple as one two three and look at a penetration table for results there. There are other ballistic matters to take into consideration.

Between the Jumbo and the Churchill MK.VII

Turret protection was close frontally. But I would still give the edge to the Jumbo. Just take a look a that gun mantlet. And an absolutly huge edge for the Jumbos side and rear walls of the turret. Overall ? .. Big edge to Jumbo

Hull frontal protection is clearly in the favor of the Jumbo. It's obvious that standard German AP shot would have major difficulties trying to penetrate either one of these tanks. The Huge advantage for the Jumbo that its armor on the hull was both thick and sloped. The Germans did have some APCR shot. But really on the western front they did not need them as badly as they did on the eastern front, Where heavier armor was much more likely to be encountered. APCR shot performed poorly against well sloped surfaces and awsome against armor set at the vertical. The Jumbos armor was reasonably well sloped on the hull and the Churchills was not at all it was set at the vertical ! ..

[roqf77]

1. yes i was, i was refering to the tiger, and the guns were made pre 1944. So yes it is true.

Plus there test plates(which i was refering to also stayed the same.)

Lastly the jumbo's hull could be over come by both the l70 75mm and the l71 88mm (with pgr 39-42 apc and apcbc), not opinion its fact.

The churchill was also invunerable frontaly to the l56 88mm at any range. Although it could probably pent he jumbo's turret at short range.

Have you read any fire test's against panthers?

Even hulls form panthers of medium quality(i.e not flawed but not top quality) only resisted a couple of hits form 17 pounders from range's where by your logic they would be impervious because of the slope(with apcbc).

its clear we dont see eye to eye. And this just isnt going anywhere. Id be happy to discuss other things with you if you like. Either via a new post ornew topic. But i think at the moment we are just flogging a dead horse.

[SadSack]

Hi roqf77

Actually I don't feel our opinions are really that way off. Infact I've been an advocate for getting the frontal protection of the Churchill MK.VII and MK.VIII tanks increased in the Talonsoft CS games. They have had a protection value of 17 for years and years. Thru my work I've gotten the mode designers whom I've worked closely with to increase it's value to a 20.

The Jumbo's have had a frontal protection value of 26 all this time. Only out done by the King Tiger with a value of 36 and the Jagdtiger with a value of 48. The Panther and Pershing have values of 21. And the Tiger I has a value of 16 by comparison.

The Jumbo's were built to be invulnerable frontally to the German L/56 88mm as found on the Tiger also. Could the 88 defeat the Jumbo's turret from close range ? .. Maybe ? .. But it would have to be real close !

Could a Panthers Gun penetrate a Jumbo's hull ? .. It would have to be real close also. I'm not talking about 500 meters being close. I'm talking about 100 and 200 meters here. A Churchills hull front was flat out more vulnerable to any type shot than a Jumbo's.

As far as the L/71 88mm .. That gun is a monster, And was far less likely to be encountered than all other types of German AT guns. Yes it could defeat the Jumbo's hull much further out than all other guns.

I'm fairly certain those test with the 17pdr's against the Panthers hull were done firing it's standard AP shot that was quite deadly in it's own right. It's my understanding, The SVDS hyper shot did not perform particuarily well against the 80mm thick, sharply sloped ( 55 degrees glacius ) of the Panther.

Yeh sure .. We can move onto a different subject.

It's been a nice debate non the less.

[roqf77]

ummmm, apds varied wildly, ill look for the url for you.

But up until august 17pdr apds was not issued, because of yawing which as you say caused the round to performe badly. But quality stock as was largely issued, as can be seen at the test's at balleroy penetrated the panthers glacias at 700 yards.

2 hits out of 2 penetrated including another hit at the junction between the glacias and the nose which also penetrated.

Although over 800 yards it became an issue again, also over 800 yards apds could be somewhat innacurate.

And nice debating to you too.

[SadSack]

Have only been playing Talonsofts CS games and modes as of late. Just recently Matrix games has aquired the rights to the Campaign Series games originally done by Talonsoft. I have a number of questions about their armor values given in the game. It wasn't to hard to figure out how the original Talonsoft designers came up with those armor values. My formula gets me within about 1.5% overall of their values. However just like my formula. Their formula must be flawed also. These formulas are not taking into account bhn or the T/D ( thickness to diameter ) ratios. These are two very important factors that should be considered passing out values. Tanks like the U.K. Churchill MK.VII's and VIII's would get much more realistic protection values than Talonsofts boys originally gave them. I've gotten those numbers raised from 17 to 21 up at the front with the latest update for the West Front game. But if armor quality ( bhn ) and T/D ratios ( thickness of armor as compared with avr. diameter of attacking AP shot ) were to be factored in. Those Churchills protection values would most certainly climb again. IMO this would get things much more realistic as to how hard they were to actually knock out. It sounds as though the Combat Mission game probably simulates that better than the Campaign Series game at this time. I have the attention of a few people right now. Hopefully they will allow me and some others to get that sorted out and corrected before Matrix puts out their new and updated versions of the Campaign Series out there to the public.