M48A5 vs T-55A

[Amedeo]

21 hours ago, E5K said:

The problem is the Panther would be firing SHOT ammo. The M48 would be firing HEAT ammo. Not good for the Panther.

Indeed. The only downside in using HEAT ammo for the M48, other than the loftier trajectory compared to APDS, is that 90mm and 105mm HEAT rounds were notorious for their unrealiable fusing when striking at high obliquity. Anyway, as I said, I agree that a Panther would be in disadvantage in a duel against a M48.

[E5K]

50 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

Indeed. The only downside in using HEAT ammo for the M48, other than the loftier trajectory compared to APDS, is that 90mm and 105mm HEAT rounds were notorious for their unrealiable fusing when striking at high obliquity. Anyway, as I said, I agree that a Panther would be in disadvantage in a duel against a M48.

Yes you make some good points. Lots of what ifs in a tank duel. I do have lots of respect for the panther. I think it was the best tank of ww2. oh oh now I have opened up that can of worms. Nice talking with you.

[Amedeo]

Well, it seems that I didn't remember all the details of the comparison from the Panzerblitz booklet... in my defense, there was some misleading contradiction: the tank depicted is the M48A2 (and the profile, indeed, is one of a 90mm armed M48), but it also says that the tank is equipped with the 105/51 (i.e. M68) gun... 

 

[slysniper]

On 3/2/2021 at 7:17 PM, Ultradave said:

I found in my play testing I almost always had to play like I knew I was facing tanks of much better quality, playing either side. It was either that or leave a lot of smoke plumes decorating the battlefield. I've played as US with M48s and had them exploding all around me, thinking "Damn, these things are useless", and then played the Soviets thinking I'll set up a nice overwatch and plink away at the M60s in the valley and had my T62s and T64s shot off the hill like so many bottles on a fence. Hull down, keyhole firing positions, "Hunt/pause/reverse" fire and move plots, using the ends of treelines to snipe from behind, are real keys. You just can't stay exposed. This may all seem obvious, or maybe not. Makes for a lot of fun.

 

My feeling exactly. The playtesting has made me rethink how best to use my armor assets once again.

The training back in the day always taught  that those that spotted and fired first would win the duel a large percentage of the time.

In this game, this principle is very, very true.

 

It has a feel all its own compared to the other CM games.  But no question about it. In general, the forces are more evenly matched in most aspects.

[E5K]

4 hours ago, Amedeo said:

Well, it seems that I didn't remember all the details of the comparison from the Panzerblitz booklet... in my defense, there was some misleading contradiction: the tank depicted is the M48A2 (and the profile, indeed, is one of a 90mm armed M48), but it also says that the tank is equipped with the 105/51 (i.e. M68) gun... 

 

Yes sir I think your right. My experience is with M48a3  90mm gun and 52 tons. Im not aware of an a2 with 105 gun.

[Thewood1]

The only A2s with 105mm gun are probably Israeli conversions and a few other late-war NATO member conversions.

[hank24]

I remember to meet a comrade in 1980 from the Bundeswehr PzAufklBtl (armored recon) at Eutin. This btl had the M48 with 105 mm gun. Do not know the version, though.

[Double Deuce]

47 minutes ago, hank24 said:

I remember to meet a comrade in 1980 from the Bundeswehr PzAufklBtl (armored recon) at Eutin. This btl had the M48 with 105 mm gun. Do not know the version, though.

If Bundeswehr M48s with the 105mm they most likely would have been the M48A2GA2.

Edited March 5, 2021 by Double Deuce

[John Kettler]

Couldn't find the right article, but these should give at least some sense of relative capabilities.. ARVN armored units in good order, using M41A3 and M48A3 tanks, shot up NVA armored forces from ranges so extreme the NVA tankers were screaming in clear they were in a minefield. This last was in the article I couldn't find but described an action to stop the NVA armor from fording or swimming (PT-76) the river near a destroyed bridge. ARVN tankers were superbly trained (to full US standards) compared to the NVA tankers, and it definitely told in tank duels. Soviet doctrine for T-54s and T-55s was single engagements to 1000 meters, with platoon volley fire or even company at greater range. T-62s extended that solo tank engagement distance to 1500 meters. Contrast that with an M36 during WW II that got a kill at almost 4 kilometers, and others that got kills at nearly 3 kilometers. 

The first link is about the performance of ARVN armor, with both the M41A3 and M48A3 included.

http://grunt-redux.atspace.eu/arvn_armour41.htm

The second link exclusively concerns combat by the M41A3.

https://mikesresearch.com/2019/03/24/m41-walker-bulldog/

Apparently, the definitive work on ARVN armor in battle is Steel and Blood, by Ha Ma Vieta former ARVN colonel who spent a decade doing research for the two-volume series.

http://mcvthf.org/Book/ANNEX G-8.html

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited March 9, 2021 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

On 3/2/2021 at 7:09 PM, E5K said:

The problem is the Panther would be firing SHOT ammo. The M48 would be firing HEAT ammo. Not good for the Panther.

E5K,

Welcome aboard!

The standard anti-armor round for the Panther was PzGr39, which was AP SHELL, not SHOT. Offhand, I don't recall whether the highly potent Panther ever had PzGr40, which was SHOT, known in British service as APCR and to the US as HVAP.

Regards,

John Kettler

[E5K]

30 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

E5K,

Welcome aboard!

The standard anti-armor round for the Panther was PzGr39, which was AP SHELL, not SHOT. Offhand, I don't recall whether the highly potent Panther ever had PzGr40, which was SHOT, known in British service as APCR and to the US as HVAP.

Regards,

John Kettler

Hi John  I just did some home work on pzGr39. Very interesting. Easy to see why German tanks were so effective. Thank you sir

[John Kettler]

56 minutes ago, E5K said:

Hi John  I just did some home work on pzGr39. Very interesting. Easy to see why German tanks were so effective. Thank you sir

E5K,

You're most welcome. As a point of interest, during the war in North Africa, it became apparent German antitank projectiles were highly effective. Testing found that a German or Italian AP shell (47 mm and up) which penetrated halfway into the fighting compartment usually knocked out the tank for good (brew up) and played hob with the crew, killing or wounding most of the men. By contrast, 2-pounder shot generally did not brew up the tank on a single penetration and didn't cause many crew casualties. This was when Allied ammo wasn't in armored boxes and Shermans (which showed up much later) didn't have wet ammo stowage either.

But all that really need be said of Allied AP ammo ineffectiveness is that Major Jarrett, American Ordnance Liaison to the British and who made the statement about what German AP shell did, was decorated for an extremely dangerous process of extracting 7.5 cm PzGr39 shells from their casings, turning down the driving bands on a lathe (spin armed shell fuze!) of the German shell to fit the also shell removed American cartridge, then fitting it into the US 75 mm cartridge. This gave the British an effective AP round for the Grants.  

Regards,

John Kettler

[E5K]

19 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

E5K,

You're most welcome. As a point of interest, during the war in North Africa, it became apparent German antitank projectiles were highly effective. Testing found that a German or Italian AP shell (47 mm and up) which penetrated halfway into the fighting compartment usually knocked out the tank for good (brew up) and played hob with the crew, killing or wounding most of the men. By contrast, 2-pounder shot generally did not brew up the tank on a single penetration and didn't cause many crew casualties. This was when Allied ammo wasn't in armored boxes and Shermans (which showed up much later) didn't have wet ammo stowage either.

But all that really need be said of Allied AP ammo ineffectiveness is that Major Jarrett, American Ordnance Liaison to the British and who made the statement about what German AP shell did, was decorated for an extremely dangerous process of extracting 7.5 cm PzGr39 shells from their casings, turning down the driving bands on a lathe (spin armed shell fuze!) of the German shell to fit the also shell removed American cartridge, then fitting it into the US 75 mm cartridge. This gave the British an effective AP round for the Grants.  

Regards,

John Kettler

Spinning those shells on a lathe must have been nervous work to say the least.

[IICptMillerII]

Any tank is capable if in a good position, or if they just get lucky. 

This platoon of M48s caught these T-62s in the flank at pretty close range. The results speak for themselves. 

[John Kettler]

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

E5K,

You're most welcome. As a point of interest, during the war in North Africa, it became apparent German antitank projectiles were highly effective. Testing found that a German or Italian AP shell (47 mm and up) which penetrated halfway into the fighting compartment usually knocked out the tank for good (brew up) and played hob with the crew, killing or wounding most of the men. By contrast, 2-pounder shot generally did not brew up the tank on a single penetration and didn't cause many crew casualties. This was when Allied ammo wasn't in armored boxes and Shermans (which showed up much later) didn't have wet ammo stowage either.

But all that really need be said of Allied AP ammo ineffectiveness is that Major Jarrett, American Ordnance Liaison to the British and who made the statement about what German AP shell did, was decorated for an extremely dangerous process of extracting 7.5 cm PzGr39 shells from their casings, turning down the driving bands on a lathe (spin armed shell fuze!) of the German shell to fit the also shell removed American cartridge, then fitting it into the US 75 mm cartridge. This gave the British an effective AP round for the Grants.  

Regards,

John Kettler

Here'an extensive (not kidding!) discussion of the above.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited March 9, 2021 by John Kettler

[fireship4]

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

PzGr40, which was SHOT, known in British service as APCR and to the US as HVAP.

Isn't it "APCBC"?  I think it was indeed composite though. (tungsten carbide).  It was like the 39 (APCBC-HE-T) but the penetrator was smaller and without a bursting charge.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPanzergranate_40

[Vergeltungswaffe]

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Any tank is capable if in a good position, or if they just get lucky. 

This platoon of M48s caught these T-62s in the flank at pretty close range. The results speak for themselves. 

M48's!!!

[MikeyD]

You got me curious so I swapped out vehicle types & changed the weather in my one little scenario and had at it. T55A got a clean first shot kill on an M48A5 from 2000m+. An impressive shot. Mostly the duels went in the other direction. Here's another M48A5 holed by an unseen enemy from the far side of the map. Judging by the explosions and holes, they were mostly chucking HEAT at each other. Rangefinder-only M48s were getting a lot of first round misses at range.

While playing my test I spotted a flaw in the AI orders. I'll get that fixed before release.

Edited March 14, 2021 by MikeyD

[Thewood1]

My recollection is that the D-10T in late 70s era T-55s would be relatively ineffective at 2000m ranges.  The BM-5 HEAT range was less than 1500m effective range and the BM-25 APFSDS was just about 2000m.  These were limitations in the round and in the fire control system.  Its one of the reasons the AT-10 Stabber was developed.  They wanted to make the T-55AM relevant at longer ranges against the L7 105mm NATO gun. 

I'm going to double check a couple sources to confirm.

[IMHO]

On 3/1/2021 at 8:24 PM, Thewood1 said:

The bolds are penetration of RHAe (mm).  The fourth is intro year.

Distance? Angle? Soviet/Russian or Western penetration?

Edited March 15, 2021 by IMHO

[Amedeo]

9 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

My recollection is that the D-10T in late 70s era T-55s would be relatively ineffective at 2000m ranges.  The BM-5 HEAT range was less than 1500m effective range and the BM-25 APFSDS was just about 2000m.  These were limitations in the round and in the fire control system.  Its one of the reasons the AT-10 Stabber was developed.  They wanted to make the T-55AM relevant at longer ranges against the L7 105mm NATO gun. 

I'm going to double check a couple sources to confirm.

Honestly, getting some hits at 2000m against a large, stationary target in good visibility doesn't look to me an incredible feat. If the shooter and the target don't move, the biggest problem is getting the correct range, but the T-55 featured in the aforementioned test sports a LASER rangefinder, so even ranging shouldn't be a problem.

Regarding gun launched ATGMs, my understanding is that the Soviet wanted something to fight back against a large number of cheap NATO ATGM armed vehicles. The fact that ATGM equipped AFVs/jeeps/helos were considered a major threat, not only for the long range but for their ubiquity, was also shown by the general introduction of first generation ERA blocks practically on all tanks in the mid '80s (Kontakt-1 was very effective against shaped charge warheads, practically useless against kinetik penetrators). Of course modern western MBTs were the deadliest threat but how many of them there were, and in particular, how many of them would a second echelon Soviet tank be likely to encounter after a couple weeks into the war?

[waffelmann]

I have to admit that I would have preferred the m48 in plain green instead of camouflaged...

[Thewood1]

I haven't been aboe to find the source on the 2000m limit.  I am pretty sure it had to do with limitations on fire control not ammo.  The statement had been that the ballistics on the APFSDS round was flat out to 1500m, but beyond 2000m, the T-55 fire control so inaccurate as to be almost useless.

 

As to the new fire control for the AT-10, Osprey's T-55 book stated that the design motivations was tanks like the M-60 and Chieftain being able to fire accurately at 3000m.  It was developed specifically to extend the life of the 100mm gun as a useful antitank weapon.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:

100mm gun

In the 1980s, 3UBM11 antitank rounds were introduced, with 3BM25 armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding-sabot (APFSDS) tungsten carbide penetrator, which increased its armor penetration.

In 1983, the T-55M and T-55AM tank upgrade program also added the ability to some tanks to fire the 9K116-1 Bastion guided missile system (NATO reporting name AT-10 Stabber), for long-range engagements of tanks and low-flying helicopters. The anti-tank missile is encased in the 3UBK10-1 shell, which is handled, loaded, and fired exactly like a conventional tank gun round. 1.5 seconds after firing, a laser guidance window in the tail of the round is uncovered, and its rocket engine ignites to burn for up to six seconds, with a total missile flight time of up to 41 seconds. The missile is very expensive, about half the price of a T-55M tank, but allows the venerable 100 mm gun to engage modern main battle tanks.

Missile ammunition includes:

• 3UBK10-1 (9M117 Bastion), penetrating 600 mm at up to 4,000 m
• 3UBK10M-1 (9M117M Kan) tandem warhead, penetrating 650 mm at up to 4,000 m
• 3UBK23-1 (9M117M1 Arkan) extended-range tandem warhead, penetrating 750 mm at up to 6,000 m
• 3UBK23M-1 (9M117M2 Boltok) extended-range warhead penetrating 850 mm at up to 6,000 m
• Ref: D-10 tank gun - Wikipedia

[MikeyD]

If the next module goes '83-86 the game's going to undergo a sea change. Everything changes, from Humvees to body armor to ERA blocks to 120mm guns. Basically it pushes us towards CMSF2 territory.

I have a chart at my elbow giving T-62 a first round kill probability against a fully exposed M60A1 as 30% (which isn't that far from M60A1's numbers vs T62). That doesn't mean it can't happen. That means when you do experience a first round kill from that range you can be surprised but not too surprised.