rexford Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 U.S. penetration data for WW II ammo is documented in TM 9-1900, providing penetration data at angles from 0° to 75°. Data for each projectile may provide different angles beyond 0°, and homogeneous and face-hardened armor are treated. Using 37 APCBC data from TM 9-1900 the following ranges would apply for 50% penetration success when a Stuart or 37mm anti-tank gun directly fires on the front of PzKpfw IVH: Cupola : none Turret front: 1500m Driver plate: 50m Glacis : none Nose : none One problem with Marder and Nashorn is that their gun sight has an 8° field of view, compared to 25° for PzKpfw IVH and 28° for Panther. StuG IIIG, JgPz IV, Elefant and Jagd Panther also had about 8° gun sight viewing. Limited gunsight fields might hurt when moving targets have to be tracked at close range. By the time the gun is rotated onto the target the target has moved out of the gunners sight. Best to set up those self-propelled and anti-tank vehicles so the guns cover likely approach avenues. Sight data also suggests that turretless guns may be best used for medium and long range fire. Regarding turret rotation speeds, Tiger and Panther are generally pointted out as slow spinners, but PzKpfw IVH and IVJ are even worse: TURRET ROTATION TANK SPEED Panther 20°/sec. high speed rotation Panther 12°/sec. U.S. tests in Europe Tiger I,II 18°/sec. high speed rotation Tiger I 6°/sec. test data for 1 tank Sherman 24°/sec. PzKpfw IVH 14°/sec. PzKpfw IVJ 7°/sec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 rexford - you have now entered 4 or 5 posts on this forum and i have to admit that each and everyone of them as so far gone right over my head. I will endevour to study more about all things military so that one day i might understand what the hell your going on about!. BTW - Welcome to the world of Combat Mission. ------------------ COMBAT MISSIONS - CM News, Supplies & Resources WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 So Rex, do you have a point to make, or was this just to enlighten us? Interesting read anyway. As far as I know, the penetration data seems to be just what I see in CM. The different fields of vision are probably not modeled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 Hey Rexford, keep it coming. Very interesting posts. We already know that Panther's and KT's turret speeds in CM are somewhat slow when compared to facts given in numerous tank-books. BTS has promised to make some changes on these which will be based on crew's experience level. And I'm still curious about Pershing's "weak" cast armor you mentioned in "German heavy tanks"-thread. Which tanks in general were made of cast armor and which weren't? Ari [This message has been edited by Ari Maenpaa (edited 12-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 A source I checked (Roger Ford's _The Tiger Tank_) states that the hydraulic turret traverse of the Tiger I (Ausf E) is slower (sob) than the figures listed above: 25-60 seconds/360 degrees, depending on engine rpm at the time, or 6-14.4 degrees/sec, if I did my math right, which is always doubtful ------------------ War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted December 29, 2000 Author Share Posted December 29, 2000 Cast armor is weaker than rolled because rolling armor changes the structure and gives it better impact resistance. Thick castings absorb impact better so they are less inferior to rolled armor, lots of material spreads the impact around. Cast inferiority is function of T/D ratio, where T is cast thickness and D is steel projectile diameter. Panther mantlet is cast, Tiger mantlet is cast, M4A1 hull is cast, Shermans have cast nose armor and 56° glacis Shermans have about half cast armor on glacis. Sherman and Pershing turret is cast. Pershing hull may be cast. When 80mm thick Pershing cast glacis is hit by 88mm L71 APCBC from Nashorn, it will be about 10% less resistant than rolled armor. Tiger mantlet is so thick that it is not very different from rolled armor when it is hit by 76mm APCBC or 90mm APCBC, maybe 1% less resistant for 140mm thickness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TownsendVol Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 Dang Rex, what a post. Are you a designer for the defense department? I am like Manx, in that, you so far above my head I need to be playing B17 Bomber 2. But I agree, your posts are interesting. I am a newbie to the game and will probably but it in the near future. I hope to get to play the demo more tonight. God Bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts