AT weapon lethality?

[Jeff Heidman]

Has anyone else noticed that AT weapons seem a little too lethal?

It seems like when two vehicles are up against one another with what seems like relatively evenly matched armor/guns, it comes down to who hits the other first, because rarely is a hit not a kill.

For example, I played a scenarion where you had a bunch of PzIVs and StuG III going up against a bunch of M4s, all 75mm armed. Engagement range was around 350m or so. At that range, the 75mm on the Sherman should be able to penetrate the frontal armor of the StuG and PzIV, but just barely. IIRC, the 75 has about 80mm of pen at that range, and the StuG has about 80mm of armor at 10 degrees. So a penetration should not come as a surprise. Of course, the reverse is not true, but that is not important right now.

It was my experience that every single 75mm hit resulted in a kill, with very few exceptions. Again, a kill should not be surprising, but I was expecting that some would kill, some would not, since there was not an overwhelming difference in the gun penetration to the armor protection.

Now certainly, I have seen 75mm shells bounce off Tigers all day, but that is to be expected. It just seems that the non-uber tanks kill each other almost aotomatically when they get hits. I am considering making the M18 my vehicle of choice for the allies. Cheap, good gun, and if youa re going to die when hit anyway, you might as well be fast!

I also think that the Allied have WAY too much HVAP/APDS. Most vehicles have at least a couple to a few rounds, and since most vehicles are going to live or die in the first few shots, they effectively have more than enough.

Comments?

Jeff Heidman

[Chupacabra]

Personally, I don't think AT guns are excessively lethal. I've bounced 88 rounds off Shermans at 100m, I've had Fireflies fail to take out Pumas and Lynxes, I've had perfect stern hits shatter or ricochet. In my last QB, I had a Marder III and a Churchill IIV ping shots off each other's front armor for almost 5 turns until the Marder finally said screw it and went into defilade.

That said, I've had lucky shots from Stuarts brew up Tigers. Luck, and all that.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Rattus]

At a similar range 300m-400m I saw a small proportion c10%-15% of my hits (MkIV vs Shermans) penetrate but with no significant damage, usually vs lower hull hit. The bulk of the time 1 hit = 1 kill. I assume this is partially a result of the AP rounds having burster's. I recall on of the posts the comment was made that the Brits considered a round with marginal penetration would result in a KO if it had a useful burster (on the Tiger armour thread). It would be interesting to see if older solid shot AP rounds had consistently less lethality after a penetration - as I think they have modelled this in CM.

Not too sure about the HVAP/APDS oversupply - I think the loadout varies significantly with date. Check out ammo for 6/44 vs 5/45... but yes, unless your vehicle has a long life you won't need it

[Jeff Heidman]

Chupacabra, you seem to be talking about some exceptional circumstances. I have also experienced those. That is fine, and is certainly part of life.

I am talking about non-exceptional circumstances. Just everyday, run of the mill, nothing special happened on this shot other than a hit was obtained against a vehicle where your guns penetration is slightly > than the targets armor penetration, or slightly <.

There seems to be only slight variablity in the outcome in those cases (assuming no exceptional circumstance, i.e a weak spot if hit or whatever). Unless you can get MUCH better armor than your expected enemies gun can handle, it seems better to "give up" the armor fight and take speed or gun yourself.

It is too bad BTS has chosen not to make any of their algorithms public, so we can see exacly what is going on.

Jeff Heidman

[Chupacabra]

Apologies if I wasn't clear. My point was that I see very few one-shot-one-kill engagements except at close range and not always even then. In my experience, gunners take 2-3 shots to achieve the first hit, let alone kill. Obviously this varies for range, experience, and gun, but the trend I've seen tends towards more shots and fewer instant kills.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Maastrictian]

Personally I find it perfectally plausible that 90% of all penetrations result in kills. Tanks have all their systems so closely packed that just about any hit is going to break something. And hot fragement flying around are likely to start fires. The chances of a brew-up, especially a catastrophic one (BOOOOM) are fairly small, but loosing the engine and turret traverse (say) is definately going to kill a tank and make the crew want to be someplace else.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I recall on of the posts the comment was made that the Brits considered a round with marginal penetration would result in a KO if it had a useful burster

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By my understanding, after the war it was found that the fragements generated by the penetration of the round did more damage than a charge at the base of the round. This is why modern AT ammo has no burster.

--Chris

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian:

Personally I find it perfectally plausible that 90% of all penetrations result in kills. --Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree with that. I am just unsure why 90% of all hits result in a penetration when the guns ability to penetrate seems only marginally superior to the armor it needs to penetrate.

This results in a situation where a marginally superior gun is not really the advantage it should be. Like, for example, the advantage a PzIVH has over a M4(75). Indeed, since the M4 can consistently penetrate the IVH, despite its weak 75, and the IVH superior AT gun can also penetrate the M4, the IVH is losing out considerably considering its slow turret traverse.

The thing is, the 75L38 of the M4 should be able to penetrate the IVH, just not consistently. The AT penetration model seems rather boolean. Either the weapon can (and probably will) or the weapon cannot (and probably will not). There does not seem to be much of a "maybe" area of the curve.

Of course, my evidence is totally anecdotal. I have not done any kind of actual study. Maybe I will once my son gets past the "I want/need attention absolutely constantly". As it is, I barely get enough time every day to *play* CM, much less do other stuff!

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Apologies if I wasn't clear. My point was that I see very few one-shot-one-kill engagements except at close range and not always even then. In my experience, gunners take 2-3 shots to achieve the first hit, let alone kill. Obviously this varies for range, experience, and gun, but the trend I've seen tends towards more shots and fewer instant kills.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, perhaps I was not clear.

I have also seen very few "one-shot, one-kill" engagements. I am talking only about AFTER a hit has been gotten. I see a LOT of one-hit, one-kill engagements.

Jeff

[Sailor Malan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I am just unsure why 90% of all hits result in a penetration when the guns ability to penetrate seems only marginally superior to the armor it needs to penetrate.

This results in a situation where a marginally superior gun is not really the advantage it should be.......

The thing is, the 75L38 of the M4 should be able to penetrate the IVH, just not consistently. The AT penetration model seems rather boolean. Either the weapon can (and probably will) or the weapon cannot (and probably will not). There does not seem to be much of a "maybe" area of the curve.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

350m is short range by 1944. The penetration of the Sherman 75 is OK at close range (good enough to do Panzer IVs - I haven't checked StuGs). Only just being powerful enough to penetrate is a bit like being only just pregnant! I mentioned in a previous post the Maginot line fort in Alsace with a 88mm AP round almost through the turret armour. The flake of armour that had come off the inside would have killed anyone behind it! I am not a fan of games that allow tanks to carry on as if nothing has happened when hit by a major AP round (i.e. one that has roughly got the penetration to kill it) - just wouldn't happen. If fact I have read accounts of jumpy crews bailing out when infantry fire set their camoflage (branches) on fire (mind you if I were a Sherman crew and I saw smoke I wouldn't wait either!)

German tanks are not superior to allied tanks all the time. The German tanks are better in that at long range (1000m+) their guns make a huge difference. At close range it is a lottery, and the first hit often tells. In fact that can also be true at longer ranges- I have killed Panthers at 850m+ with a Sherman(75), first hit (Panther turned side on). I have also had a 6pder firing at the rear of a Tiger 1, bounce 2 rounds off before killing with the 3rd. Mind you, the range was 25m, and the first hit did take out the track, limiting the Tigers options slightly!

------------------

The conception of such a plan was impossible for a man of Montgomery's innate caution...In fact, Montgomery's decision to mount the operation ...[Market Garden] was as startling as it would have been for an elderly and saintly Bishop suddenly to decide to take up safe breaking and begin on the Bank of England. (R.W.Thompson, Montgomery the Field Marshall)

[ryant]

Hi Jeff,

Taking your example:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

IIRC, the 75 has about 80mm of pen at that range,and the StuG has about 80mm of armor at 10 degrees. So a penetration should not come as a surprise.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you think that the quality of the STuG's armor is the reason why the Sherman is consistanly getting kills on the STuG or the PzIV? Say the armor quality is 85% and thickness is 80mm, I would think that the Sherman should consistanly kill the STuG if it can penetrate 80mm of armor.

[Fionn]

Jeff,

What do you mean when you say the following ( it seems to contradict itself)

" I have also seen very few "one-shot, one-kill" engagements. I am talking only about AFTER a hit has been gotten. I see a LOT of one-hit, one-kill engagements."

You've just lost me at that point.

[jgdpzr]

Fionn,

I think Jeff was just saying that, from his experience, a hit almost always equals a kill. Not a "one shot kill" but a "one hit kill."

[Jeff Heidman]

Fionn,

jgdpzr has it right.

It seems like at the middle of the gun-armor curve, the gun wins out almost all of the time.

The only time I see hits != kill is when the gun is clearly inferior to the armor.

For example, when a Tiger drills a M4A1, it kills almost all of the time. When an M4 drills a Tiger (frontally) it rearely kills. Exactly what you would expect, since the 88L56 on the Tiger grossly outmatches teh M4s armor, whereas the 75L38 on the Sherman is clearly outmatched by the Tigers frontal armor. So if the Tiger hits the M4, it kills 90% of the time, and if the M4 hits the Tiger it kills 10% of the time. These are made up numbers, but you get the point.

Where is the point in the armor-gun curve where the target is only destroyed 40% of the time? I have yet to see it, and I have not seen where I would expect it, i.e. the 75L38 vs. the Stug IIIG frontal armor.

Jeff

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian:

By my understanding, after the war it was found that the fragements generated by the penetration of the round did more damage than a charge at the base of the round. This is why modern AT ammo has no burster.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris, The report is in Jentz 'Tank Combat in N Africa'... and it refered to 'partial penetration', which means the projectile didn't penetrate plate.... your talking about penetrating hits result in 'spalling'.

BTW; From what I've read, APHE was in use by Americans and Russians with the 90mm & 100mm gun tanks of the post war era through the 50s.

[Paul Lakowski]

On the general subject, If you recall in Guderians 'Panzer Leader' he reports that from 43 on all Assault guns and SP guns are to be manufactured with 'mild steel'.

If you check out the link below you'll see that the Jagd Panthers Glacis was only 210 BHN which is the same as the Tiger 2s and the Hetzer has 240 BHN glacis!well below the acceptable 270-280 BHN.Mild steel is upto 180 BHN

 [url="http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/ga/apen/bhn/bhn.htm"]http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/ga/apen/bhn/bhn.htm[/url] 

[/HTML]

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

Paul, if nothing else, the site you posted the URL to has some really interesting pictures of the battle damage.

One thing that stands out is that most of those destroyed and damaged vehicles were hit multiple times. Whether this is because it often took multiple hits, or because SOP was to keep hitting them till you were sure, is unknown. Likely both.

Jeff Heidman

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Paul, if nothing else, the site you posted the URL to has some really interesting pictures of the battle damage.

One thing that stands out is that most of those destroyed and damaged vehicles were hit multiple times. Whether this is because it often took multiple hits, or because SOP was to keep hitting them till you were sure, is unknown. Likely both.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff; I have an 'Operational Analysis' text book that includes calculating kill ratios and 'Lanchester equation' etc etc. In there they had 'WW-II' data on kill rates related to 'overmatch' and you don't reach 80% 'kill' until you 'overmatch' the targets armor by 50-60%[off the top of my head ]

[Paul Lakowski]

The book is titled "Applied Operations Research", by a group from 'Royal Ordnance and Royal Military College of Science'England {off course }.Heres the results of the work

charts derived from WWII data on tankloses,to predict the average expected out come of a large number of fire fights.In these charts a “kill” probability is assigned baced on increacing “overmatch”.In there version “overmatch” is the term denoting how much the penetration exceeds the targets armor,in the form of a ratio.Here are the approximate survivablity ratios Vs increasing “overmatch” for an “average” tank.

<font color=white>

<PRE>

0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9+

3% 10% 17% 30% 40% 55% 65% 70% 73% 77% 80%

</PRE>

<font color= orange>

In the matter of plate hardness = resistance APFSDS test suggest 0.156% per BHN difference between 275 BHN standard and the new plate , so a 220BHN plate should offer ~ 9% less resistance or the plate offers 91% resistance of RHA standard.

RM Ogorkiewcz reports that API bullits [7.62-12.7] Vs 380BHN plate and 180 mild steel ... the difference in resistance is 0.8 Vs 1.0 suggesting the 200BHN points amount to 20% or 0.1% per BHN difference.

Note that due to performance in the extremes these values don't apply below 180BHNor above 400BHN. As 600BHN armor offers only 1.19 compared to 1.0 for 380BHN [ about 0.6 per BHN] , while 110BHN mild steel offers only 0.66 of RHA 380 or 34% over 270 points [ 0.13 / BHN].

<font color=black>

What hardness figures does the game use ?

If I use RM Ogorkiewcz figures , our late war Stug III has 80mm armor problably 220BHN and thus offers conservatively 94% or 75mm resistance. So what is the penetration for the 75mm gun @ 300m 500m & 1000m range and whos figures US or Brits?

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

I agree with you Jeff, In most situations I would just go with M18 Hellcat cuz seems like only Jumbo and Pershings can actually go trading shots with the Germans. Someone posted awhile back about the Chaffee getting rear kill shots on Tigers during Battle of the Bulge. So I tried them out and they work great! Ultra fast and cheap(compared to German AFVs) At least versis AI in GBs, the M18, Chaffee, T8 combo swarm works scarily well.

Mr. Johnson-<THC>-

Levi Nikolas Klein