Is artillery too powerful against tanks?

[Jeff Duquette]

Regarding the original thesis and its reliance on Guderian’s memorandum of early July 1943 (i.e. detailing the invulnerability of the Panther Top armour to HE), consider the following: The Panther’s performance was less than stellar at Kursk. In addition, actual combat service of the Panther was minimal at the time Guderian’s memorandum was issued. I therefore contend that Guderian is basing his assessment of the Panthers top armour having Herculean resistance to HE as being founded in very limited information available to Guderian at the time his report was prepared. Very few Panthers even made it into combat at Kursk do to engine fires, and other mechanical problems. In addition, A large number were immobilized or destroyed in minefields before reaching “the battlefield”. Therefore his conclusions are based upon very limited numbers of machines seeing combat. I contend that, had Guderian written the memorandum in question after a year of hard-core Panther combat service, his conclusions would have been different in this regard. There are too many documented instances of Panthers being damaged and destroyed by artillery fire to support Guderian’s claim (I wallowed through the remainder of Panzertruppen 2 last night and found several additional references to artillery fire damaging\destroying Panthers).

Early on in this same memorandum Guderian states the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the evening of 11 July (sic 1943), 38 Panthers were operational, 31 were total write-offs and 131 were in need of repair. A slow increase in combat strength is observable. The large number of losses by hits (81 Panthers up to 10 July) attests to the heavy fighting.

The deep, heavily mined, main battlefield of the Russians must result in above average losses of materiel through hits and mines. The fact that the Panther appeared for the first time on the battlefield focused general interest. Comparisons against losses of other Panzer units were not made. Therefore the high command and troops quickly jumped to the conclusion: The Panther is worthless! (Jentz’s Panzertruppen Vol. 2 pg 99)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guderian – during the 1941 through early 1943 period -- was painfully aware of the Whermacht’s short comings in main battle tanks (pre-Tiger and pre-Panther) relative to Soviet T34’s and KVI’s and KVII’s. As evidenced in Guderian’s memorandum of July 43, the dismal performance of the Panther at Kursk resulted in a ground swell arising in the German Army regarding the “Worthlessness of the Panther”. I think Guderian recognized the value of the Panther and its abilities to over-match Soviet tanks -- if the Panther could be brought through its mechanical teething pains. To parry the growing “Panther Lynch Mob” growing during Kursk, Guderian rifles off a memo putting the Panther in a fairly positive light.

Regarding Kinetic Energy: Again I have to ask you Fernando: why does muzzle velocity have anything to do with high explosives ability to penetrate armor? Common HE munitions have impact fuses that explode the shell into thousands of little splinters and fragments upon striking something. Kinetic energy does contain a “mass” component in its calculation. If the shells mass is being spread spherically around the impact point the mass being applied by the shell to a tanks turret top approaches zero…therefore KE approaches ZERO. I still contend its blast effect that cracks tanks open when we are talking about HE.

[Jarmo]

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

why does muzzle velocity have anything to do with high explosives ability to penetrate armor?.... ....I still contend its blast effect that cracks tanks open when we are talking about HE.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then, why does CM give HE shots with

a bigger muzzle velocity

a bigger penetration ability, than a shell with identical blast value

but slower velocity?

[Jeff Duquette]

beats me

[Guest Big Time Software]

Perhaps this will help you guys out. The Blast value is there to represent the effect of the HE's effectiveness against soft targets. It is a VERY rough figure and the game uses much more detailed values depending on conditions (like terrain for example). The quantity of HE and fragmentation ability is also factored in here, so two rounds with the same Blast value might actually have different HE and frag capabilities, but in the end they roughly equal each other vs. soft targets.

The penetration values of HE against armor is figured out using penetration equations that take into consideration the various things that allow HE rounds to cause damage to armored plate. This is all Charles' stuff, so I don't know the specifics.

But the point remains... even a 75mm HE artillery round has a decent chance of knocking out a tank if it scores a direct hit. Guderian's statments, as pointed out above, need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, the chance of a AP round striking the top armor of an AFV is very, very rare on the battlefield. Also, it would most likely be at a really great angle for deflecting the shot even if one did hit topside. So given the choice the designers would use the same weight of metal to reinforce areas commonly hit (like turret front).

Steve

[Fernando]

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

Regarding the original thesis and its reliance on Guderian’s memorandum of early July 1943 (i.e. detailing the invulnerability of the Panther Top armour to HE), consider the following: The Panther’s performance was less than stellar at Kursk. In addition, actual combat service of the Panther was minimal at the time Guderian’s memorandum was issued. I therefore contend that Guderian is basing his assessment of the Panthers top armour having Herculean resistance to HE as being founded in very limited information available to Guderian at the time his report was prepared. Very few Panthers even made it into combat at Kursk do to engine fires, and other mechanical problems. In addition, A large number were immobilized or destroyed in minefields before reaching “the battlefield”. Therefore his conclusions are based upon very limited numbers of machines seeing combat. I contend that, had Guderian written the memorandum in question after a year of hard-core Panther combat service, his conclusions would have been different in this regard. There are too many documented instances of Panthers being damaged and destroyed by artillery fire to support Guderian’s claim (I wallowed through the remainder of Panzertruppen 2 last night and found several additional references to artillery fire damaging\destroying Panthers).

Early on in this same memorandum Guderian states the following:

On the evening of 11 July (sic 1943), 38 Panthers were operational, 31 were total write-offs and 131 were in need of repair. A slow increase in combat strength is observable. The large number of losses by hits (81 Panthers up to 10 July) attests to the heavy fighting.

The deep, heavily mined, main battlefield of the Russians must result in above average losses of materiel through hits and mines. The fact that the Panther appeared for the first time on the battlefield focused general interest. Comparisons against losses of other Panzer units were not made. Therefore the high command and troops quickly jumped to the conclusion: The Panther is worthless! (Jentz’s Panzertruppen Vol. 2 pg 99)

Guderian – during the 1941 through early 1943 period -- was painfully aware of the Whermacht’s short comings in main battle tanks (pre-Tiger and pre-Panther) relative to Soviet T34’s and KVI’s and KVII’s. As evidenced in Guderian’s memorandum of July 43, the dismal performance of the Panther at Kursk resulted in a ground swell arising in the German Army regarding the “Worthlessness of the Panther”. I think Guderian recognized the value of the Panther and its abilities to over-match Soviet tanks -- if the Panther could be brought through its mechanical teething pains. To parry the growing “Panther Lynch Mob” growing during Kursk, Guderian rifles off a memo putting the Panther in a fairly positive light.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you really think Guderian rifled off a memo putting the Panther in a fairly positive light? Did you read the full report. Most of it is on Jentz’s “Germany’s Panther Tank”, pages 132-134

Some excerpts:

This is the full paragraph about invulnerability to artillery fire:

“Armor: Enemy weapons did not penetrate through the frontal armor of the Panther. Even direct hits from straight on fired from 76 mm anti-tank and tank guns did not penetrate through the gun mantlet. However, the sides of the Panther were penetrated at ranges exceding 1000 meters. The 76 mm anti-tank and tank rounds broke cleanly through the turret sides and both the sloped and vertical hull sides. In most cases, the Panther inmediately caught on fire. This was posibly due to the large amount of propellent in the ammunition that is carried. The Panther is basically invulnerable to artillery fire. However, direct hits by calibers of over 150 mm on the roof of the hull and turret had the effect of deforming the armor and causing internal damage. Hits by lighter caliber shells hitting the commanders cupola and the roof armor showed no effect

Weak spots: Pistol port plugs were hit (possibly by 45 mm armor piercing shells) and shot into the inside of the turret. A loader and a commander were killed. The rim of the pistol plugs should be reinforced. The communications hatch on the left turret wall was crackety by a direct hit (possibly by a 76.2 mm armor piercing shell) and incapacitated the turret crew. There is concern, that rounds hitting the lower half of the gun mantlet will be defected downwards and penetrate through the roof of the crew compartment”

Another excerpt:

“Hits: The frontal armor is sufficient but not the 40 mm thick side armor wich was cleanly penetrated. This caused very many total writeoffs, since Panther burnt out when the ammunition or fuel ignited. Also, the roof armor is too weak. Armor piercing rounds that hit the lower half of the gun mantlet were deflected and penetrated the roof plate. This resulted in driver and radio operator casualties. Strenghtening the armor is not possible, since the suspension is not adequate for a larger load. The new hatch design caused problems, especially for the driver and radio operator. When hit, the hatch cover jams and can’t be opened. If the Panther was to catch on fire, in many cases the driver and radio operator couldn’t evacuate. In action crews don’t close the hatches and accept the loss of protection so that they can still quickly evacuate if a fire occurs”

The conclusion:

“In closing, it should be remarked that the Panther has been proven succesful in combat. The high number of mehanical breakdowns that ocurred should have been expected since lengthy troop trials have still not been acomplished. The curve of operational Panthers is on the rise. After correcting deficiencies in the fuel pumps and the motors the mechanical breakdowns should remain within normal limits. Without consideration of our own mistakes, the disproportionally high number of losses through enemy action attests to specially heavy combat”

On March 5th, 1944 (about eight months later) he wrote:

“The latest experience reports from the Panzer-Abteilungen state that with the exception of minor deficiencies, the Panther is at last front ripe. As an example on 22 February 1944, Panzer-Regiment 1 had reported: “In its present form, the Panther is troop ripe. It is far superior to the T34 tank. Almost all the bugs have been worked out. This Panzer has exceptional armament, armor, cross country travel ability, and speed. At this time, the lifespan of the motor is 700 to 1000 Km. Motor failures have decreased. Final drive breeakdowns no longer occur. The steering gear and transmission have proven to be acceptable”

Please notice Guderian states that the roof armor was too weak because the AP rounds deflected by the gun mantlet penetrated the roof plate but it was strong enough to withstand artillery fire. Most of the defaults were corrected later (the pistol ports were eliminated, the hatches and gun mantlet were redesigned, most mechanical problems corrected etc).

This report doesn’t seem a partial or “political” one for me. Guderian was a experienced commander, listened their men and tried to pinpoint the defaults and correct them. He wasn’t a “living-in-the-Moon” Mcnair, as we say in Spain (I think, the correct English expression is “to have one’s head in the clouds” that is a Spanish expression too). If he reported that the side armor was easily penetrated and the roof armor could be penetrated by deflected AP round then why did he “lie” about the invulnerability to the indirect fire? There is no reason for it.

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

Regarding Kinetic Energy: Again I have to ask you Fernando: why does muzzle velocity have anything to do with high explosives ability to penetrate armor? Common HE munitions have impact fuses that explode the shell into thousands of little splinters and fragments upon striking something. Kinetic energy does contain a “mass” component in its calculation. If the shells mass is being spread spherically around the impact point the mass being applied by the shell to a tanks turret top approaches zero…therefore KE approaches ZERO. I still contend its blast effect that cracks tanks open when we are talking about HE.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you’re right then we can’t forget the KE and concentrate on the blast and splinter effect. That’s the question: How much different were the shells of the German 75 mm guns listed on my previous post? Did the shell of the 75 mm howitzer be much heavier than that of the 75 mm recoilless or 75 mm infantry gun? I don’t know the answers and I don’t have any book about WWII artillery on hand. I guess someone could help us. Maybe Charles

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

[Jeff Duquette]

Fernando:

At the risk of sounding like a smart-ass (and petty), but are you sure you read through the report in its entirety? The following quote which you have attributed to Guderian was infact written by Oberstleutenant Reinhold attached to the 4th Panzer Armee during Operation Zitadelle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“Hits: The frontal armor is sufficient but not the 40 mm thick side armor wich was cleanly penetrated. This caused very many total writeoffs, since Panther burnt out when the ammunition or fuel ignited. Also, the roof armor is too weak. Armor piercing rounds that hit the lower half of the gun mantlet were deflected and penetrated the roof plate. This resulted in driver and radio operator casualties. Strenghtening the armor is not possible, since the suspension is not adequate for a larger load. The new hatch design caused problems, especially for the driver and radio operator. When hit, the hatch cover jams and can’t be opened. If the Panther was to catch on fire, in many cases the driver and radio operator couldn’t evacuate. In action crews don’t close the hatches and accept the loss of protection so that they can still quickly evacuate if a fire occurs”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not attempting to imply that a man of Guderian’s character and reputation is a liar. The thought had never crossed my mind. The purpose of my post was to indicate that at the time Guderian prepared the report in question, the Panther was a relative new comer to combat. The knowledge base available to Guderian on the vehicles combat performance was therefore still very limited. During its debut the Panthers performance was border line abysmal due to mechanical problems. I think the tone of Guderian’s memo is set when he states “Comparisons against losses of other Panzer units were not made. Therefore the high command and troops quickly jumped to the conclusion: The Panther is worthless!”

[Fernando]

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

Fernando:

At the risk of sounding like a smart-ass (and petty), but are you sure you read through the report in its entirety? The following quote which you have attributed to Guderian was infact written by Oberstleutenant Reinhold attached to the 4th Panzer Armee during Operation Zitadelle.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You’re right indeed. I missed the non-italic text at the botton of the page. Anyway it’s a nice complement to Guderian’s report and it prove I read the full report AND something else reinforcing Guderian statements

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

I am not attempting to imply that a man of Guderian’s character and reputation is a liar. The thought had never crossed my mind. The purpose of my post was to indicate that at the time Guderian prepared the report in question, the Panther was a relative new comer to combat. The knowledge base available to Guderian on the vehicles combat performance was therefore still very limited. During its debut the Panthers performance was border line abysmal due to mechanical problems. I think the tone of Guderian’s memo is set when he states “Comparisons against losses of other Panzer units were not made. Therefore the high command and troops quickly jumped to the conclusion: The Panther is worthless!”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe there weren’t too many Panthers in action at the date (though about 25 panther were repaired and sent to the Panther unit daily so there was an 8intense rotation of those tanks) but I’m pretty sure Guderian reported the invulnerability to medium and light artillery because some people in a Panther were hit by artillery shell and reported it as ineffective. There were many mistakes on the German side. The tank had many mechanical problems, the crews weren’t properly trained and the unit was’t combat ready. Some commanders thought the Panthers were a new kind ot heavy Tiger-like tank and sent them to the fray without covering their very vulnerable flanks or without giving them adequate support. The German still had to learn to use them. There were lots of losses and the troops and their commanders understandably thought it wasn’t a good tank. Anyway it doesn’t matter wether the crews liked their Panthers or not. Some of them reported they were hit by artillery fire wich didn’t damage them (medium an light artillery) or failed to penetrate the Panther top armor (heavy artillery). There are many examples of damage to Panthers or other tanks by artillery fire but IIRC there’s no example of PENETRATION of its top armor in this forum in so far.

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 10-09-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Not that I want to get into the finer points of top armour, but I just found this example from Real Life™, i.e. 'The recollections of rifleman Bowlby' by Alex Bowlby who served in Italy. Good book BTW.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On my way back I saw the ground round the tanks erupt in mortar bombs. For a while the tanks performed a sort of mechanical dance, jerking backwards and forwards, in an effort to avoid the bombs. Then they turned tail and headed for the road. I waited for them to re-form. They kept going. When they were out of sight I ran back to the section.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These tanks were supposed to come to the support of a Rifle Coy on a hill behind German lines. The position had to be abandoned because a German tank later showed up and made it an unhealthy place to be for the Tommies in the absence of tank support for them.

Two points:

1. the tanks maneuver under mortar fire to which they are probably invulnerable, except for secondary damage.

2. they buggered off, maybe b/c they were pretty clear that they were under observation. Which was unhealthy in the Italian hills in summer 1944.

What's my point? Don't know, I seemed to recollect there was something about maneuver under fire in this thread earlier, so I wanted to confirm this. Also, maybe the tankers did not really trust the penetration figures, and who could blame them.

you may now go back to arguing about the Panther's top armour...

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

Andreas

[IntelWeenie]

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

But the point remains... even a 75mm HE artillery round has a decent chance of knocking out a tank if it scores a direct hit.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any chance of looking at this issue WRT smaller HE hits (2" mortars and the like)?

I've seen Panthers killed with them before and it just doesn't seem right.

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

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

[Jeff Duquette]

sorry...double post

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

[Jeff Duquette]

Germanboy:

Thanks for the post. By all means interject into Fernando's and My discussion on minutia. I think the subject at hand its interesting to us…perhaps it has less interest to other folks

Weinie

I have to agree. It doesn't seem right. Mortars seem pretty potent and quite readily take out tanks with top penetrations. I haven't killed a Panther with a 2inch mortar yet, but have succeeded in taking out numerous MKIVH's.

Fernando:

Again I suspect you are right regarding incidence of Panthers being impacted by lighter caliber HE and surviving unscathed at Kursk. Undoubtedly Guderian's assessment of the top armor was based on actual after action reports. My feeling is that as more combat experience was gained with this vehicle, more than likely it became apparent --- if we are to take other action reports as true regarding tank casualties resultant from HE --- that the Panther could be vulnerable to top hits.

So sometimes an HE round hits a Panther and does nothing, sometimes an HE round hits a Panthers and it damages or destroys the tank out right. Or sometimes an impacting round does no physical damage to the machine, but the concussion resultant from the impact\blast kills the crew on the interior.

In the latter case the tank isn't necessarily damaged, but it is out of action for the purposes of the immediate battle. Ordnance folk eventually come along and recover the tank, haul it back to their maintenance yard, hose the old crew off the floor and walls of the tanks interior, slaps on some new paint, and prest-o change-o the tank is back in business. Ready for another bright eyed crew.

[Fernando]

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

Not that I want to get into the finer points of top armour, but I just found this example from Real Life™, i.e. 'The recollections of rifleman Bowlby' by Alex Bowlby who served in Italy. Good book BTW.

These tanks were supposed to come to the support of a Rifle Coy on a hill behind German lines. The position had to be abandoned because a German tank later showed up and made it an unhealthy place to be for the Tommies in the absence of tank support for them.

Two points:

1. the tanks maneuver under mortar fire to which they are probably invulnerable, except for secondary damage.

2. they buggered off, maybe b/c they were pretty clear that they were under observation. Which was unhealthy in the Italian hills in summer 1944.

What's my point? Don't know, I seemed to recollect there was something about maneuver under fire in this thread earlier, so I wanted to confirm this. Also, maybe the tankers did not really trust the penetration figures, and who could blame them.

you may now go back to arguing about the Panther's top armour...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Andreas.

This quote reminds me that it seems there's a lot of people who think/ask: if the tanks were immune to enemy artillery fire then WHY do they tried to avoid it at all cost?

Well, tanks WEREN’T immune to artillery fire. A lucky shot could damage the gun or immobilize the tank. If you are a mmeber of the crew of a tank under enemy artillery fire, will you brave the enemy fire and risk to be immobilized, perhaps in the worst place at the worst time and in full view of the enemy who can quickly bring some AT weapons to try to kill you ASAP? Well, I WON’T. If I can avoid it, that is.

Most of the time an immobilized tank was dead meat. If you decided to stay inside that coffin then being knocked out (and killed or wounded) was just a matter of time but if you decided to abandon it then you had to brave the enemy fire. Please, remember that a single bullet fired by an untrained boy with an old bolt action rifle was more than enough for killing you once you’re out of your vehicle and don’t forget that the enemy infantry soldiers were surely delighted to be able to bring you some of the pain you wanted to bring to them.

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 10-09-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 10-09-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, I think the question should be...

Is the probability of a shell impacting a vehicle in CM too high?

Rather than:

If x shell hits y top armor would it cause penetration?

The first question is subjective, the second question much less so. There is a possibility that CM does model direct artillery hits too frequently, but I do not think there is a problem about the modeling of the hit itself.

However, to prove CM's direct hit probability is too high there would have to be some concentrated tests using fair "battlefield" parameters. If someone wants to do a bunch of these (and I must state that repetition is VERY important here) suggest the parameters here for discussion. Too often people wing tests with flawed parameters and we wind up with wasted effort on the part of the tester.

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

BTS:

Sounds like a winning idea. I would have to agree with all your assessments. I personally think a direct hit by a artillery round is more than likely going to shake things up in a tank (penetration or not). Tankers had a healthy respect for artillery and would displace if the situation allowed it. I think round dispersion and probability of impact is at the hart of the matter. The concern would be tweaking the game to far in the opposite direction, resulting in players "pooh-poohing" indirect artillery fire (ala Talonsoft's modeling of the effect of indirect artillery fire on tanks in East Front II and West Front…i.e. nil)

I am personally more at odds with CM's modeling of light and medium caliber mortar fire and its impact on tanks.

[Banshee]

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

Is the probability of a shell impacting a vehicle in CM too high?

*snip*

There is a possibility that CM does model direct artillery hits too frequently, but I do not think there is a problem about the modeling of the hit itself.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have hit on my personal pet peeve of CM (I never thought it worthy of its own thread but buried in another just to get it off my chest will do).. That is the "default" behavior of vehicles under indirect arty fire is very illogical. It's very easy to take out vehicles (tanks, HT's, et al.) this way (IMHO!!) since they will basically sit there and "take it" for 1 minute before you are able to move them again. I severly doubt this would be the behavior IRL. And though I could point out a plethora of examples from books, it is anecdotal evidence. Since I dont believe there are any stats available for this type of thing I am at a loss how to prove my point. I believe the default action should be to move to the place that is least observable without exposing oneself to fire from the forward direction (very tough for the AI to figure that out I suspect). But I think the fact that you usually get a full dose (minute or so) on target before they can move would increase the likelihood of a hit.

Where I think the "easiest" way to see this behavior is with light skinned vehicles under mortar fire, it still holds true for larger vehicles under heavier fire.

Ok, I'm done with my mini-rant, I feel better now

EDIT: Err To summarize the above and tie it into the quote I snipped from BTS : The probability of a shell impacting a vehicle is too high in CM only because the vehicles tend to stay in the impact zone for a longer period of time than they would do historically (IMHO).

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 10-09-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Jeff.

Banshee, the TacAI has been tweaked to do just as you asked. I for the life of me can't remember if this is in 1.05 or an up and coming fix for the next patch. But I know for sure Charles worked on this issue recently.

Steve

[Guest JAZZA]

I just had my jagd panther knocked out by a top penetration in a pbem by what i'm pretty sure was 4.2 brit mortar fire.Also why is the brit 4.2 mortar spotter cheaper than the amis 4.2 mortar spotter when they both have 80 ammo?

[CavScout]

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

You have hit on my personal pet peeve of CM (I never thought it worthy of its own thread but buried in another just to get it off my chest will do).. That is the "default" behavior of vehicles under indirect arty fire is very illogical. It's very easy to take out vehicles (tanks, HT's, et al.) this way (IMHO!!) since they will basically sit there and "take it" for 1 minute before you are able to move them again.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good point. It is a VERY looonnggg minute when big shells are dropping all around. This could be a reason for the perceived higher hit ratio in CM.

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

[Jarmo]

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

Also why is the brit 4.2 mortar spotter cheaper than the amis 4.2 mortar spotter when they both have 80 ammo?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ami 4.2 packs a bigger punch. I think it's also faster to arrive.

[Banshee]

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

Banshee, the TacAI has been tweaked to do just as you asked. I for the life of me can't remember if this is in 1.05 or an up and coming fix for the next patch. But I know for sure Charles worked on this issue recently.

Steve

Originally posted by CavScout:

Very good point. It is a VERY looonnggg minute when big shells are dropping all around. This could be a reason for the perceived higher hit ratio in CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTS : It's definetly not in 1.05, that'll be great if it is in 1.06!

2 people agreeing with me in one day, a new record !

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Fernando]

This a very interesting page about penetration of naval armour plates:

http://www.warships1.com/W-Nathan/Miscarmr.htm

I guess it could be useful for calculating the effect of HE on armor plates. Please check point six:

6. PENETRATION OF HOMOGENEOUS STEEL PLATE BY PROJECTILE FRAGMENTS OR BY PROJECTILES EXPLODING WHILE IN CONTACT WITH THE PLATE

It's a very dense text and it's very hard for me to understand it. I think we need some people with some technical knowledge for deciphering it.

[Fernando]

Sorry, I posted the same message three times

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Fernando]

A mistake

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Bullethead]

Fernando said (3 times)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>6. PENETRATION OF HOMOGENEOUS STEEL PLATE BY PROJECTILE FRAGMENTS OR BY PROJECTILES EXPLODING WHILE IN CONTACT WITH THE PLATE<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One important thing to point out here: Homogenous Steel Plate ain't armor, it's construction material. What this section is discussing is HE damage to unarmored ships or unarmored parts of armored ships (which is what you'd shoot HE at). So the amount of penetration of the shell is going to be much less, and the damage done to HSP material is going to be much greater, than for the same thickness of armor.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Fernando]

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

Fernando said (3 times)

One important thing to point out here: Homogenous Steel Plate ain't armor, it's construction material. What this section is discussing is HE damage to unarmored ships or unarmored parts of armored ships (which is what you'd shoot HE at). So the amount of penetration of the shell is going to be much less, and the damage done to HSP material is going to be much greater, than for the same thickness of armor.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most calculations are done for STS. Defined as Special treatment Steel or Classs "B" armor