Is artillery too powerful against tanks?

[Fernando]

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

WO 291/399 Casualties to Churchill tanks in 25-pdr concentrations.

A trial conducted in 1943 tested proposed new tactics, whereby Churchills would advance though concentrations of friendly 25-pdr fire, by twice driving a squadron of Churchills through live artillery fire. It is concluded that the worst that can happen to a Churchill in these circumstances is immobilisation. The effect of a 25-pdr round exploding on a Churchill is described thus:

"There is no adverse effect on the crew from a 25 pdr direct hit. Fragments cannot penetrate the tank, and the blast is not at all uncomfortable."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Ron.

Panther top armor: 16 mm

Churchill top armor: 17 mm

I guess I wasn't wrong. A 25 pdr can't destroy a Panther.

[Jeff Duquette]

Ron (or should I say Paul Vebber and John Waters ):

Excellent post! Did you notice weather Paul had indicated a reference to his AFV casualty stats?

I have also posted several studies regarding AFV battle damage vs. causation. The statistics I have seen in some cases are actually indicating higher tank damage assessments than what these fellows have dug up, but not by much. The lowest case study I found is the famous 3.3 percent HE damage for the British 21st Army Group in 1945. The high side was an incredible 14.5 percent for the Soviet 1st Tank Army during Kursk. Five other case studies run between 5 to 12 percent tank damage attributable to HE.

Someone on a previous posting within this thread had alluded to the relatively high numbers of indirect HE tank casualties which occurred during Normandy or the Bulge. The actual numbers do not seem to support this assessment. Another unfortunate example of folks putting forth unsupported anecdotal information as fact. I think the average reader would be rather flabbergasted as to the actual impact (or lack thereof) of TAC air on Tanks in Normandy as well…but that's for a different thread

Paul's assessment of target coverage area of an indirect fire mission relative to area occupied by a tank, is also an excellent exercise in showing how unlikely it is that tanks would actually be hit by the average battery fire mission (except by pure luck). Again this goes directly back to the case of either high-density fire missions being required (i.e. multi-battalion fires using TOT) or tight clusters of vehicles being required to really see damage occurring as a result indirect artillery fire.

I would however, like to indicate that - based on review of Jentz's Tiger 1 study - that various improvements were performed on the Tiger 1 to reduce potential damage from HE. These included a thickening of turret top armour from 25mm to 40mm (I think this occurred sometime around March of 44). In addition, thicker driver hatches, and some sort of turret ring protection were provided to limit damage occurring to these areas as a result of indirect HE fire.

I think an interesting exercise is to construct a 500 meter by 500 meter CM map in the scenario builder…put 4 MKIVs (or favorite tank of choice) on the map, and an Allied FO\FOO. Put the tanks on ambush so they don't kill the FO…than target the tanks with HE (play the game hotseat so you can control both sides). I think you will be surprised how effective artillery is in this game.

One thing I would like to add…although indirect HE in CM my seem pretty brutal to tanks…its impact relative to the destructive power of artillery barrages in Close Combat 3 is like comparing a pop-gun to a nuke (with CC3 being the nuke).

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think an interesting exercise is to construct a 500 meter by 500 meter CM map in the scenario builder…put 4 MKIVs (or favorite tank of choice) on the map, and an Allied FO\FOO. Put the tanks on ambush so they don't kill the FO…than target the tanks with HE (play the game hotseat so you can control both sides). I think you will be surprised how effective artillery is in this game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the results might be interesting, how do they corelate to real world results? In the real world is a tank going to sit through a barrage? In the modern world, at the first sign of incomming you displace. This means if you see someone laying a bracket on your butt [spotting rounds] you move out!

I yet to lose any tanks to artillery in CM, have had a few damaged guns and a few immbolized but no kills. I would suggest that some of the "lethality" in the game is how people are employing armor.

It takes two or three turns for a FO to call in a strike. I would ask, why does someone have tanks sitting in view of the enemy for that long?

Cav

[Ron]

Jeff,

I think most of the info I posted earlier came from this website, slow loading but LOTS of info.

http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt5.htm

[Jeff Duquette]

Ron:

Great web page...a gold mine of WWII statistics. Thanks much for the URL.

Scout:

Let me try and explain the scientific method. First off a controlled scenario should tell you weather its possible to actually kill a tank with a mortar or artillery barrage. The reasoning behind controlling input parameters (like not letting the tanks move or fire back) is to get away from "gee I had some mortar dude kill tanks a bunch of times, It was pretty cool". What the heck does that really mean. Was the tank moving...what kind of tank was it...are you sure some 75mm PAK didn't kill the tank while you were away gettin' a beer or takin' a leek?

I have only been playing the game about 3 weeks and I already killed at least 3 Panthers with limited indirect HE...not all the concentrated hvy HE nonsense folks are talking about doing in these point based scenarios. Some of these kills were moving too. Does that make my game experience more valid than yours? Not really.

As far my little experiment's correlation to the real world...or should I say to the real game...if I cant kill or damage tanks under extremely controlled conditions…than I sure as **** can't kill them during a game in which only a numb skull is going to sit in the same spot and let his tanks get hammered by an 8inch howitzer barrage. My little experiment is an attempt to validate weather the game engine will let you kill tanks with indirect fire or not. Since you're a skeptic...give it a try. Actual results during game play may vary.

As far as tanks moving out when ever their under HE fire, thus making them pretty much invulnerable...I have already posted some historical cases in which FO's were calling in fire on stationary tanks for relatively long periods of time without even scratchin the tank\tanks. How do these accounts fit into the puzzle?

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-05-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Fernado:

Jentz -- in Panzertruppen Vol 2 – has the Churchill MK III rated with a turret roof thickness of 19mm and the MK IV with a roof thickness of 20mm. It was that extra 3 to 4 mil advantage that the Churchill had over the Panther which made them invulnerable to 25 pounders. If only those Panthers had a full 19mm.

[CavScout]

<u>Combat Lessons No.2, War Department Pamphlet, 1944</u>

Page 22

FIELD ARTILLERY NOTES

Artillery vs. Tanks Lieutenant Colonel F. Q. Goodell, Field Artillery, Observer with VI Corps, Italy: "Direct fire of 105-mm howitzers is credited with stopping the German armored threat on D+4. One battery knocked out five tanks with six individual rounds at a range of two to three hundred yards."

[Jarmo]

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

I would however, like to indicate that - based on review of Jentz's Tiger 1 study - that various improvements were performed on the Tiger 1 to reduce potential damage from HE. These included a thickening of turret top armour from 25mm to 40mm (I think this occurred sometime around March of 44). In addition, thicker driver hatches, and some sort of turret ring protection were provided to limit damage occurring to these areas as a result of indirect HE fire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure it was done for the fear of arty? To my knowledge the

tankers had a great fear for jabos, more so than for the arty.

[Jarmo]

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

"Direct fire of 105-mm howitzers is credited with stopping the German... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not the effectiveness of direct fire in question here.

They probably used HEAT anyway.

[CavScout]

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

I have only been playing the game about 3 weeks and I already killed at least 3 Panthers with limited indirect HE...not all the concentrated hvy HE nonsense folks are talking about doing in these point based scenarios. Some of these kills were moving too. Does that make my game experience more valid than yours? Not really.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't claimed any validity. But if artillery kills vary so wildly from player to player, I would suggest that the individual player's tactics may be a contributing factor to losses.

[Jeff Duquette]

Cav Scout:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Artillery vs. Tanks Lieutenant Colonel F. Q. Goodell, Field Artillery, Observer with VI Corps, Italy: "Direct fire of 105-mm howitzers is credited with stopping the German armored threat on D+4. One battery knocked out five tanks with six individual rounds at a range of two to three hundred yards."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you’re talking! Did you find this at the USA MHI web site?

I was going back through Jentz’s Panzertruppe as well as scouring other sources for historical examples of artillery fire and its effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) against tanks. I will try and post this info tonight or tomorrow. Was the above account from Salerno or Anzio?

Regarding player performance, and their tendency to whine when wargames don’t go there way...commonly placing the blame on the historical inaccuracy of the simulation rather than their own poor judgement I am all too familiar with the phenomena. A lot of folks claim infantry is to weak, and Tanks are to strong in Close Combat. I say: “They just don’t understand the game or the simplest of combine arms tactics”. Use historically valid tactics and you would be amazed at how successful you can be in CC. I suspect the same is true of CM.

Jarmo:

Yes I’m sure it was fear of Artillery. Look at Doyle and Jentz’s: Tiger I, Heavy Tank 1942-1945, Osprey Military, copyright 1993. Pages 12-17 describe various improvements to the Tiger I during its service history.

The date of the improvement (March 1944) should indicate something to you with regard to your conjecture on this point. This type of guessing is what I was alluding to earlier about posters and anecdotal information.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-06-2000).]

[Jarmo]

Bit of summing up.

On the other hand:

We have a statement claiming the Panther is unkillable by sub 150mm arty.

The british tests showed that 25pdr arty can't kill a Churchill.

Kills credited to arty were "often" actually caused by direct fire.

Say, all 105mm howitzer kills go to arty category.

Now, could it be that the HE penetration cabability is grossly

overestimated throughout the game?

I mean, if a 25pdr HE can't penetrate a <20mm roof, the given penetration

number must be way too big. (Don't have the game here, I'm at work)

If I remember right, even 75mm has 40 odd mm's of penetration ability.

But on the other hand:

The tiger top armor was increased to 40mm to give better survivability

against arty.

Number of reports claiming tanks destroyed by indirect arty.

It just doesn't make sense for 105mm HE to not penetrate less than 20mm of armour.

-----

Does anyone have "official" figures for HE penetration?

If the range/velocity has minimal impact on the penetration,

then just about any test should do.

But if the velocity has minimal impact, then why does 75mm howitzer HE

have double the penetration capability if 75mm infantry gun? Both have

about the same blast value. (IG has the bigger one)

[CavScout]

If arty was as ineffective as some seem to believe, I have to wonder why using artillery would stop a tank advance?

Reading some of the After Action Report, 38th Cavalry Recon Squadron we see report after report of tanks being stopped by arty.

[Ron]

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

If arty was as ineffective as some seem to believe, I have to wonder why using artillery would stop a tank advance? Reading some of the After Action Report, 38th Cavalry Recon Squadron we see report after report of tanks being stopped by arty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posted earlier and seems to answer your question:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WO 291/1321 The accuracy of predicted fire.

"It is estimated that broadly speaking an A.G.R.A. firing at 12,000 yds with all guns concentrated will deliver about 2/3rds of the shot not very far from uniformly into an area 200 yds by 200 yds, the remainder being scattered rather thinly beyond these limits." If one assumes say a 4x6 m "foot print" for a tank a roundin needing to land within 5m to have a chance to damage the target that menas a 14x16m vulnerable area - or 224 sqm area out of 40,000 or about a .5% or 1 in 200 chance of an artillery round landing in the vulnerable area of a tank. If we need an actual strike, then the probability becomes 20/40,000 or 1 in 2000 rounds would actually strike a tank in the beaten zone.

Now the nature of artillery and tank combat mean that the noise and concussion from artillery will play havoc with both intra and inter-tank C2. THis effect of preventing effective comms in and near teh beaten zone is teh factor resonsible for many instances of artillery 'disrupting" tnak attacks. The occupants of teh tnaks being unable to communicate in teh midst of a heavy baaarrage. Thus one reads often of the "disruption" or "scattering" of armored attacks by artillery but rarely of vehicles being actually hit.

Now what we would today call "operational fires" the massing of Brigade and division sived arty units against armored spearheads did cause significant actual casualties, but these are tyopically not tactical "call for fire" situations CM deals with, but diisiona nd Corps commanders acting on recon about concentration of enemy force well before an actual attack.

So from the British War office data, aand a litle first order analysis, an actual hit on a tank by artillery is a VERY remote possibilty. The "effect" of a round acting adversely is less obsure, and teh general effects of disruption and C2 problems were endemic in even harrassing bararages.

Paul Vebber<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jarmo]

Note that if we assume a arty spread area of only 100 meters across,

(10 000square meters), the probability of shell landing into a

vulnerable area jumps up to .0224, or about 1 out of 50.

Then if we put 5 tanks into that area, the chance of shot falling

into the vulnerable area of a tank jumps to .112, or about 1 out of 10.

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 10-06-2000).]

[Fernando]

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

Fernado:

Jentz -- in Panzertruppen Vol 2 – has the Churchill MK III rated with a turret roof thickness of 19mm and the MK IV with a roof thickness of 20mm. It was that extra 3 to 4 mil advantage that the Churchill had over the Panther which made them invulnerable to 25 pounders. If only those Panthers had a full 19mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right. Jentz list it as 19 or 20 mm. Unfortunately I used the CM data (17 mm). Is it wrong then?

I guess BTS had solid reasons for listing Churchill armor as 17 mm.

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 10-06-2000).]

[harlock]

It seems a lot of people are comparing HE to HEAT which is wrong. Why HE wouldn't penetrate the top armor of the Panther is because the blast is going outward so there would be much less KE hitting the top. Reactive armor is HE, the explosion disrupts the stream of molted steal that HEAT uses. Reactive armor which is bolted on to the tank even on the top parts of the turret doesn't do damage I find it hard to believe a 60m mortor would to a Panther.

Harlock

[Da Coder]

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

While the results might be interesting, how do they corelate to real world results? In the real world is a tank going to sit through a barrage? In the modern world, at the first sign of incomming you displace. This means if you see someone laying a bracket on your butt [spotting rounds] you move out!

I yet to lose any tanks to artillery in CM, have had a few damaged guns and a few immbolized but no kills. I would suggest that some of the "lethality" in the game is how people are employing armor.

It takes two or three turns for a FO to call in a strike. I would ask, why does someone have tanks sitting in view of the enemy for that long?

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a note re: tanks sittting there... They don't have to be sitting there. I've often used arty to kill/stop armored attacks particularly when on defense. How? Simple - buy a few TRPs and then identify natural choke points and set up my TRPs and FOs accordingly. Watch for the armor to approach the TRP and then BAM! Usually good to make a BIG dent in the advance with multiple kills on any lightly armored vehicles and usually a tactical kill on one or more of the heavier AFVs. (IE: gun damage, immobilization, etc.) TRPs are cheap and effective...

Of course, knowing this, on offense, I always smoke the same kind of locations just to make sure this doesn't happen to me!

- Da Coder

[Jeff Duquette]

Fernando:

You recognize of course that I was joking about the 3 to 4 mils of extra armor being some sort of significant difference between the Panther and Churchhill top armour. That is certainly an interesting find on your part regarding BTS using 17mm. Perhaps a difference in apparent hardness or some such thing…or a judgement call on relative armor quality? Did the Germans face harden their turret tops…seems like that would have been a waste of time and money, but I don’t know for sure.

My personal opinion regarding the whole matter: I think Fernando is probably partly right. There are no doubt instances of direct hits by sub-100mm HE in which little apparent damage occurred to late war tanks. The Churchhill tale would seem to imply invulnerability of this tank type to direct hits from 25 pounders. It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch to think tanks with similar levels of top protection would be equally invulnerable.

Of interest, and something which has not been discussed is the context of Guderian’s report regarding the Panther (and its invulnerability to sub-150mm artillery munitions) His report was written during Kursk, and its entirety should be examined for relative context (I will scan and post the entire report if anyone is remotely interested).

On the other hand there are certainly accounts of HE damaging and destroying late war tanks via both near hits and direct hits. Take an hour and skim through Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2. I found at least 12 accounts in the first half of the book detailing damage or destruction of tanks via indirect artillery fire...and the book isn’t even about tanks vs. artillery. There is at least one account of a Panther being lost as a result of a direct hit from Soviet 152mm HE round.

Other artillery damage\kill accounts:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“Panzer-Brigade 112 was sent into action on 12/13 September against the American breakthrough southwest of Epinal. During this necessary action, the Brigade lost almost all of its Panthers and half of its Pz.Kpfw.lVs to fighter-bomber attacks, artillery fire, and tanks. The (Panther) Abtellung/Panzer-Regiment 29 was practically destroyed. They still possess four operational Panthers.” (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 197)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>”3. In spite of their heavy armor, the Tigers are also forced by the enemy's air supremacy, very well directed artillery fire, and 9.2 cm anti-aircraft/tank guns to follow the basic tactical principles that apply to the leichte Panzer-Kompanie: camouflage, terrain exploitation, and hidden firing positions! .” (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 190)”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ron already posted this one:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The British analyzed Panzers captured in Normandy from 6 June to 7 August 1944 to determine how they had become casualties. Of 110 Panzers examined, 53 were caused by armor-piercing shot, 8 by hollow charge projectiles, 9 by artillery high explosive shells (sic. that’s less than 10% of the entire sample), 1 by mines, 7 by rocket projectiles from aircraft, 3 by cannon from aircraft, 7 were destroyed by crew, 4 were abandoned and 18 were due to unknown cause. (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 189)”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The first loss sustained in action was a Tiger which had one radiator destroyed by an artillery round and had to limp back toward Cori in stages. Twelve Tigers were thus left in action during the night of 23/24 May 1944. (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 148)”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>During combat on 23 and 24 May 1944, the company lost six Panthers as total write-offs in exchange for destroying a total of 33 enemy tanks. Five Panthers (401,411,414, 415, and 422) burned out due to fire from enemy tanks. After running out of fuel, and already damaged by hits from enemy tank fire, Panther 433 burned out when hit by artillery fire. (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 147)”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>…we were subjected to well-placed heavy artillery fire. Panzer 725 (sic these are Panthers) was immobilized by hits (right track off), immediately followed by the turret being hit. Panzer 733 fell out almost at the same time due to a hit in the gearbox. (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 142)”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>…We again received very heavy barrages from enemy artillery along further stretches. A ricocheting round knocked a head-size hole in the belly of the hull and damaged the fuel pump of the Pz-Kpfw.IIIH (L24) being towed. (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 140)”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>…Battle on the heights: At first, the Panzer-Abteilung was subjected to well-directed artillery fire from Sarje. A Pz.Kpfw.lV of the Stab was hit in the suspension and immobilized. (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 118)”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>…28 July 1943 Strong artillery fire near Catenanouva. During the night, Panzer-Zug Hoffman and one Fallschirmjaeger-Zug conducted a counterattack. Losses: 1 Pz.Kpfw.lll received a direct hit from artillery fire and was a total write-off. (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 105)”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In addition, there are several statistical studies clearly indicating evidence of tanks being damaged\destroyed by indirect HE fire. But the stats aren’t overwhelming by any means. Sample numbers as low as 3.3 % and seem to max out at about 14.5%.

I think tanks are tough to kill by HE, but not impossible. Why:

a) Because it is difficult for FO’s to hit pin-point targets with indirect artillery fire. There are too many variables that result in slight shifts of shells away from the intended point of impact. Read Ron’s post above. In addition:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Our own artillery tire has often proven to be a handicap in fighting and destroying enemy tanks. Hardly had a Panzer ranged in on an enemy tank when it would be enveloped by a wide spreading cloud of dust and smoke which was immediately created every time the artillery fired. The enemy tank could pull back over the ridgeline under cover of this cloud of dust and smoke and take up a new position. After Panzers and Panzer-Jaeger open fire against enemy tanks, the artillery starts to fire even though they very seldom can obtain a hit on these small, individual targets. Therefore, artillery batteries must immediately cease firing when Panzers and Panzer-Jaeger start to engage enemy tanks. (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 219)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For a while we are right between his tanks on the left and ours coming up on the right. One of his with an 88-mm gun (probably a Tiger) is in a copse near the Caen—Falaise highway firing from a hull-down position. He's so bloody close – only about two hundred yards away - that each time he fires, the muzzle blast bangs our ears together and flattens the grain all around us as the shot screeches overhead and a shower of sparks goes up from one of our tanks up on the hill, which he keeps hitting until it brews up. So I put a battery of mediums (sic 25 pounder howitzers) on him and hammer him for about half an hour. (I may not have knocked him out, but I'll bet I loosened up the bowels of that crew.) George Blacburns: The Guns of Normandy. Blackburn served as an F.O.O. in the 2nd Canadian Division, ETO, 1944.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sometimes even when a direct HE hit is scored, a tank isn’t always damaged by direct hits from HE (especially smaller caliber HE rounds).

c)Tanks being shelled will have a tendency to displace if they can. A whole series of commands between FO and FDC would result as artillery attempts to “track” displacing tanks and keep them under fire.

From the Panther Battalion of the 116th Panzer Division during fighting in Normandy:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“Shortly thereafter, the artillery fire started again. The hits came close to the Panther. Only by continuously changing positions were we able to prevent artillery fire from having any effect” (Jentz’s Panzer Truppen Vol 2 pg 190) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jarmo:

Good catch on the "direct" fire in Cav’s reference. I missed that first time around. It certainly is realistic to think that the 105’s were firing HEAT. A similar account (read it somewhere) regarding a battery of 105’s attached to TASK FORCE SMITH (early days of the Korean War). The battery was attacked by NKA T34/85’s. The battery succeded in holding the T34’s at bay (and destroying several) till their HEAT ammo ran out. They switched to HE which apparently had little effect. The battery was subsequently over-run.

[Jeff Duquette]

FM 17-15, Tank Platoon, CHAPTER 3

Tank Platoon, Reaction to Indirect Fire Drill

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When the platoon (sic M1 tank platoon) receives unexpected indirect fire, it moves out of the impact area unless it is also engaged in direct fire contact or is directed to remain stationary. TCs place their hatches in the open protected position; other crewmen close their hatches. Crews also close ballistic doors (M1A2 crews stow the CITV). They mask based on the automatic masking criteria established in the OPORD or if they suspect the use of chemical agents. The platoon leader sends a SPOTREP to the commander.

If the platoon is moving when it receives suppressive artillery fire, it executes an action drill to avoid the impact area or continues to move to clear the impact area and continue the mission (see Figure 3-17). If it is stationary, the platoon should attempt to clear the impact area. (NOTE: Several factors, such as the commander's orders or the enemy situation, may prevent the platoon from moving during direct fire engagements or defensive operations. For example, the commander may require the platoon to occupy hide or turret-down positions while continuing the mission. In such a case, the platoon leader must request permission from the commander before clearing the impact area.) Once the platoon clears the artillery impact area, individual crews place their hatches in the appropriate position, open ballistic doors (M1A2 crews turn on the CITV), check antennas, and return to positions or continue the mission.

The commander should address the platoon's reaction to anticipated indirect fires in the actions on contact subparagraph of the OPORD. When the platoon receives anticipated indirect fires, it reacts according to the commander's guidance, which it should already have analyzed and rehearsed. If the platoon needs to execute a course of action different from that directed by the commander, the platoon leader should request permission from the commander before executing the alternate action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jeff Duquette]

what happened to my favorite thread?

[lassner.1]

I must say, I have found the previous discussion and arguement both interesting and informative. What surprises me is that there has been no official response to the matter under discussion. This is a worthy arguement and deserves a reply and even consideration by the makers of CM.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, we have followed the discussion, but since it seemed to be well managed on its own, I felt we had little to add

Obviously, we feel the hit/damage % is about right. Perhaps it could be less, but that is hard to say. I do think that any significant reduction in % hit chances might be too much.

I think Jarmo's quick math in the above post (correct or not) points to the main area of focus. And that is probability. Fire enough rounds into a small enough space, you will hit something. Do this turn after turn, game after game, and you will hit a lot of somethings.

As for the top armor being good enough to withstand a hit from a large HE round, I don't understand how it is possible. Check out the penetration figures for a direct fire HE round at even 2000m. the German 150mm gun on the Hummel can crack through 80mm at 0 degrees. The US 105mm gun can penetrate over 50mm under the same conditions. So I am at a loss as to explain how 17mm or 18mm of armor is supposed to defeat such a round. Also, why on Earth would the Germans have strengthened the roof of the Tiger if 20mm was sufficeint? That vehicle was already too heavy, so this was a rather taxing addition IMHO.

Just some food for thought,

Steve

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

As for the top armor being good enough to withstand a hit from a large HE round, I don't understand how it is possible. Check out the penetration figures for a direct fire HE round at even 2000m. the German 150mm gun on the Hummel can crack through 80mm at 0 degrees.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the mystery.

I assume the penetration values have come from a respected source.

You don't suppose they could be wrong?

For all weapons? Hell no.

[Fernando]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

As for the top armor being good enough to withstand a hit from a large HE round, I don't understand how it is possible. Check out the penetration figures for a direct fire HE round at even 2000m. the German 150mm gun on the Hummel can crack through 80mm at 0 degrees. The US 105mm gun can penetrate over 50mm under the same conditions. So I am at a loss as to explain how 17mm or 18mm of armor is supposed to defeat such a round. Also, why on Earth would the Germans have strengthened the roof of the Tiger if 20mm was sufficeint? That vehicle was already too heavy, so this was a rather taxing addition IMHO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a previous message I compared the *CM* penetration figures for some German 75 mm guns (HE shells):

“I’ve compared the German 75mm infantry gun, 75 recoilles gun and 75 mm howitzer. All three have almost the same blast number (a combination of blast radious and blast strengh) but different penetrations closely related to their muzzle velocity:

75 infantry Gun: blast 35, muzzle velocity 260 m/sec, penetrates 20 mm at 100 meters

75 recoilles gun: blast 34, muzzle velocity 351 m/sec, penetrates 29 mm at 100 meters

75 mm Howitzer: blast 34, muzzle velocity 500 m/sec, penetrates 42 mm at 100 meters”

Please, notice I used CM data only.

AFAIK the weight of their HE shells was very much the same (the weight of their HEAT shells was) so I guess they roughly had the same Explosive power (they have almost the same blast number in CM) thus they’d roughly have the same penetrating power. In CM they’ve got VERY DIFFERENT penetrating powers and it seems their penetrating power are closely related with their muzzle velocity. In CM HE, shells with higher muzzle velocity (=higher kynetic energy) get higher penetration but their penetrating power is almost the same at 100 m than at 2000 m. It’s a contradiction. It the velocity of the shells is the most important thing then the penetrating power should decrease with distance. If it’s the HE power the most important thing then it doesn’t matter what the shell velocity is, its penetrating power shouldn’t decrese with distance and the three guns should have the same pentrationg power.

About the top armor thickness: The Panther was designed at a later date and it got just 16 mm. There was a lot or knowledge gained after two-three years of war but the German designers thought 16 mm was sufficient. There are three menaces for a tank top armor: artillery, airplanes and shells fired by an enemy tank with enough height advantage over its target. The artillery menace didn’t change from 1939 to 1945 because gun calibers and HE shells didn’t change too much. OTOH the tank gun calibers and the penetrating power of their shells/shots increased A LOT during the war so late war tanks were more capable to penetrate thin top armors than the early war ones. IIRC most of the more dangerous guns for the panzers (76 mm, 17 pdrs and 90 mm) weren’t in service when the Panther was designed though I guess the designer team took the possibility into account. The air menace also increased for the Germans as the war went on. Enemy fighter bombers got better and heavier weapons (most of them had .50 MGs, some of them had 20 mm and I think a Hurricame AT version was armed with 40 mm or so guns) and were armed with rockets so the Germans HAD to improve the top armor of their tanks. Finally, heavier tanks get heavier armour than light and medium ones most of the time.

BTW THANK YOU VERY MUCH for this game. It’s WONDERFUL.

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 10-08-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 10-08-2000).]