Heibis Posted March 17, 2000 Share Posted March 17, 2000 I have just been taking a good look at the Wild Bill & The Raiders Design Headquarters pictures of the versions of PzKfw IV modeled in CM. They look just wonderful, and I am really pleased that BTS put so much work in the small but oh so important details One question I would like to ask, however, is: What are the reasons of the increased penetrating power of the IVJ over the other two versions? AFAIK the gun carried is the same 75L48 and I cannot think of anything special that I have read or heard of this seemingly superiority of the IVJ. I know the difference is not large, but please enlighten me anyone! Cheers, Jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kip anderson Posted March 17, 2000 Share Posted March 17, 2000 Hi, I was just about to post the same question! It's "nerdish" I know, but I would be very interested to know the answer. All the best, Kip. ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted March 18, 2000 Share Posted March 18, 2000 Maybe a better AP shell was used by the IVJ variant, I don't know for sure, but that's my guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCP Posted March 18, 2000 Share Posted March 18, 2000 That is probably correct. I don't know enough regarding old projectiles to give a definite answer. However, ammunition used in modern tank guns undergo continuos development with newer generation providing higher penetration than the older ones. Still they are fired from the same gun. Remember it's the projectile that penetrates the armour, the gun is "just" the way to launch it. Regards/JCP [This message has been edited by JCP (edited 03-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted March 18, 2000 Share Posted March 18, 2000 Hi guys Seems like they used different sources for the penetration data of the H and J. The data they have now are wrong. As Heibis stated both variants used the same gun and the same ammo, making it the same penetration data. Altough I doubt that the little differences which show up does have a huge impact on gameplay. If you look more closely both variants have the same penetration data for 30 degrees. The data shown represent the PzGr39 (APCBC), but the H and J variant differ at the 0 degree angles. Seems like there is a problem doing the calculation for the different angles. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/ [This message has been edited by DesertFox (edited 03-18-2000).] [This message has been edited by DesertFox (edited 03-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted March 18, 2000 Share Posted March 18, 2000 Well, apart from the gun, I'm also surprised that the two variants get the same engine : wasn't the IV J supposed to have a Maybach HL120TRM112, featuring 272 horsepower, a less powerful version of the HL120TR/TRM of the IV H ? Regards, Magnus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted March 18, 2000 Share Posted March 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>wasn't the IV J supposed to have a Maybach HL120TRM112, featuring 272 horsepower, a less powerful version of the HL120TR/TRM of the IV H ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope Both had the same engine. The HL120TRM, featuring 300 PS at 3000 Upm; giving the tank a PS/ton ratio of 12 (Panther=15, TigerI=12 and TigerII=10). The only significant difference was that the electric power traverse was discarded in favour of a combined motor/hand-driven turret traverse system and the optained additional space was used for an auxiliary fuel tank of 200-litre capacity, which increased the theoretical road range to 187 miles (113 cross country). Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted March 18, 2000 Share Posted March 18, 2000 Tipo, tipoh, typoh, tiepoh, typo? Can't be, must be something else more serious. So asks the ghost of the mortally wounded argument "Get the game out now, we wont sweat the small stuff." Actually I'm suprised no one has asked why the L48 gun on the G model, most were produced with the L43 gun. Were there more L48 than L43 surviving G's by 6/44, or was it more pragmatic considerations? Just curious. ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 18, 2000 Share Posted March 18, 2000 Ok, definitive answer coming now. 1. The penetration data in the picture for the J is different from the H for the simple reason that I think the person taking the pictures took them from different versions of CM. A short while ago Charles recalculated some of the penetration info. The picture from the IV G and IV H come from different builds. One was before the recalculation and one after. I just opened up CM and checked the stats for the G,H and J and ALL have the same penetration data. 2. So, there's no typo and there's no mixup in data.. There was just a "polishing" of data and the person taking the pictures took them from different builds IMO. 3. Scurlock... I would imagine the L48 was the more common in June 1944 in France and thus it was chosen to be modelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heibis Posted March 18, 2000 Author Share Posted March 18, 2000 Thanx, Fionn! That cleared things up for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted March 18, 2000 Share Posted March 18, 2000 Always rely on Fionn for an answer for a question dealing with German WWII weaponry . Thanks, interesting! ------------------ Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn. Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 I hate when I get old saved work mixed up with newer work. That can be more embarrasing than a simple typo, but it wasn't Steve and Charles error, just another example of their commitment to quality. It does bring up another question though: Am I correct in presuming that all weapons platforms that use the 75mm KwK L48gun (or any other gun for that matter) go to a single source code for penetration calculations, or is the modeling such that the data is recoded for each individual vehicle type? I also suspect the information available in the vehicle data screen is for reference only, and not directly liked to the vehicle modeling code, is this true? ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Heres a question that Ive been wondering about: Were the AP,HE shells (part coming out the barrel) the same for all German 75mm weapons. That is Panther 75L70, All the L48s, Stump from early panzer IV and 1/2tracks, PAK? I would assume they are and that the germans saved the cases for reloading and would have a rear area point with powder and shells and caps. This way one factory churning out AP rounds would satisfy most needs. I think I remember reading once in Armor magazine how the americans in africa used captured german 75 ammo that they modified for grants. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Well this answer is a bit complicated. 1. The info available in the info box is ONLY to give players some idea of how units perform. While some of us here like to argue whether an APCR shell from a 75/L46 ( First one to give the designation and number of Pz IVs produced with the L46 and their approximate time of production gets a POTD request from me (and 5 cool points ) ) would be superior to a 75 L/48 APCBC at 400 metres others here have difficulty deciding if the MG42 was a German or US weapon . (remember all the brouhaha regarding M10s vs Tigers for instance? ).. Since there's a wide variety of knowledge levels playing CM I think it makes sense to give some "guideline" figures for penetrations. 2. Do these figures mean anything in-game? Well, if a shell hits a turret sloped at 30 degrees at EXACTLY 500 metres range with a 0 vector 3 dimensional offset from a path perpendicular to the normal of the plate at that point then the figure will apply. However, the odds of that happening are about a million to one . CM calculates the angle at which a shell hits in both the x and y axis and ballistic path, offset etc conspire to ensure that virtually no shell is going to hit at these "labaratory" angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Building on what Fionn just said, the stats *do* have a direct relationship with the game engine, but are not the sole factors looked at. Fionn, you forgot about things like armor hardness (Brinell sp?) and shell integrity. There are other factors such as slippage due to the angle of the strike, which is the most significant one. The stats assume hitting the target bang on, not at an angle. To sum up, the stats do have a direct interaction with the game system but there is so many other factors involved that the stats are only a guideline. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Fionn, of course, meant to type M18s vs Tigers. Those are Hellcats not Wolverines in Last Defense. Both carried a 3 inch gun but they were slightly different models. It will be interesting to see the differences in the gun characteristics. Although I wonder how many M10s were still around from June 1944 on since prodiction had ceased by then. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Fionn, A trick question?? The plan was to install the L/46 gun beginning in March 1942. However, it was found that the Pak40 (earlier Pak 44) could not be installed directly in the Pz IV turret due to the long recoil and unwieldy projectile. The redesign to solve these problems led to a substantial shortening of the recoil, from 900mm to 485mm, as well as the adoption of a shorter, stubbier cartridge that reduced the length of the loading chamber from 730mm to 508mm. The success in shortening the recoil later allowed for the installation of the L/48 barrel that primarily was opted for because it was easier to produce, though it also gave a useful performance boost using the same cartridge and projectile. In March 1942 the first 18 Pz IV F2 with the L/43 gun were produced. In April 1943 all producers had shifted to the L/48 barrel. Or are we talking test vehicles? M [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 03-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Jason, M10s were in service in significant numbers all the way up until the end of the war. Plenty of combat shots of them in the Bulge. However, many were brought back to the US and Canada to be converted into M36 90mm TDs, which started to arrive in August 1944. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 19, 2000 Share Posted March 19, 2000 Mattias, Perhaps . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted March 20, 2000 Share Posted March 20, 2000 Again, all I get is a cryptic answer and no mention made of POTD requests previously put in prospect. Ill interpret this as indicating that I’m not eligible to compete M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts