What does "Gun Damaged" really mean?

[Bastables]

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

Hey,

Well, your data was from '43. So if all those changes occured, and the game takes place in '44 and '45 then doesn't that make the information from '43 invalid? If steps were taken to address these issues, there should be less occurences of serious gun damage, right?

Why does everyone have to be so hostile? This is a discussion. If you have relevant evidence, please present it. Don't presume that everyone has access to the same information you do. It is entirely possible that there is an error or an out of proportion average for gun damage. I greatly admire BTS for producing a highly accurate simulation, and I love the game. This does not mean that every calculation in the game is perfect. Most references I have read are too large in scope to address specifics about causes of casualties, but those same sources do address issues such as engine troubles. If your data can prove that there is some large proportion of gun damaging hits, then great. One report doesn't cut it though.

We could always drop this and go back to discussing really important things like hamsters...

Reaper<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh, Missed the continued attempts to minimize the problem with the mounting of, in lieu of the TFZ 13 (an upgraded TFZ 12a) the SZF1 in the roof in the proposed series production of the Panther ausf F never mind the paper SZF2 and SZF3 which were to enter mass production during 1944/45. An indication that the ruggedness of the mantled mounted TFZ 12 family was still problematic even after successive upgrades and strengthing of mantle-mounted sights. But your correct, the incidence should be lower than in 1944. But I see nothing in my playing that indicates that gun damage rates are sky high. Past 2 months one KT (mine) and annoyingly one 251 when my 7.6cm Sherman of incompetence fired its last round (APCR) at it.

Jeff, my god! Your mate did tell you that that occurs only if the object suffering high velocity impacts is a single discreet mass. Tanks are not solid blocks of steel. They are made up of individual components all with different stress tolerances and pass on that stress on the components that they are connected to. This of course mean that the mufflers are going to take less of the initial shock than componats attached directly to the mantlet, relatively sensitive equipment attached to the mantle such as the sights are not going to roll with the punches as well as the turret, the hand brackets on the turret rear escape hatch or the suspension.

Lets take a look at Speilberger narratives of the tests involving fixed installation of the main gun to the superstructures of Veh, bear with me it’s a bit long. ‘ Firing trials in Kunnersdorf using a Sturmgeschutz with a 7.5cm L/48 gun without recoil were conducted on 7 March 1944. The gun was held in a compass gimbals inside a 100mm thick sloping armoured plate. This was reinforced by a vertical plate approx 150mm high and 20mm thick on the outer front plate.

97 rounds were fired, during which the driver’s periscope broke. The engine radiator sprung a leak. After each shot the StuG kicked back a few cm.’ this was a veh which had successive attempts at strengthening since April 1943 specifically to tolerate the stress involved in fixed gun mounts and they still could not handle it. There are narratives of modified PII rolling back 190 cm, rear springs on the Hertzer versions failing so that it would rock back and forth like a drunk after every shot and sights breaking off and falling into the combat compartment of PIV’s versions. This is a pretty damming indication that armoured veh are not discreet masses things break, rupture and fall off when stress levels exceed tolerances, including by extension high velocity shells repeatedly slamming into a Tank.

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

From the jshandorf

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-12-2000).]

[Reaper]

Hey,

Something that we have been sort of dancing around here is that the "defenders" are asking that those of us questioning the current mechanic to provide proof that there is a problem. Proof normally consists of reports, etc... from primary sources. I think what many of us are citing as "evidence" is the nearly complete lack of any record of gun damage as a significant issue. Our proof is that its never mentioned as a problem in the texts we have read. Quite honestly that (and my instinct) is all I have to go on. I make no pretenses of knowing more than the developers, but I would certainly be interested in seeing evidence that I have yet to encounter that indicates these percentages are accurate. Hell, I could just be having extraorinarilly bad luck with the sim, so the math could be fine and I am a statistical aberation.

My point is, I think the best we can cite without extensive research is "I have never seen any evidence to indicate that gun damage occurs at the rate experienced in CM". I have read histories from several sources, but I make no claim at being an expert. I have consulted books by Melenthin, Chamberlain and Doyle and I have nothing to indicate the level of damage one way or the other.

I will quietly sit back now and see if BTS responds, or wait for someone to give me a book title so I can do my own reading. I thank those that took time to consider this post, and those that presented evidence for each side. Without further data we are dancing around speculation and conjecture and that rarely produces useful results.

Reaper

[CavScout]

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

Thus a tank AP shell striking the mantel would have the same effect as a shell leaving the mantel. Roughly the same amount of energy, and thus roughly the same kenetic energy effect.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm... "a tank AP shell striking the mantel would have the same effect as a shell leaving the mantel" makes no sense. Are you trying to say firing a gun is as dangerous as being hot with the same gun? This is simply asinine. That's like claiming a bullet strinking the hand has the same effect as firing the same bullet from a handgun in your hand...

Cav

[CavScout]

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

Hmmm... How about this... Since so far there have been NO nurmerous accounts of the optics being vulnerable to mantlet hits then can't you say that it isn't an issue?

The shot trap, the weak transmision, and the boggie wheels locking up on the Panther A is documented on almost every web site talking about the Panther, so if the optics were an issue don't ya think SOMEONE would mention it?

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only if gun damage was isolated to the Panther. If it was a common occurance among all tanks it wouldn't, would it?

Cav

[jshandorf]

Cav,

If you look at the Panther the gun mantlet comprises over 90% of the front turret. A front turret therefore is almost always going to be a front mantlet hit.

Man... I agreed with you before that direct hits on the barrel would obviously damage it. Can we just drop that part? I am talking about mantlet hits only.

From the design and slop of the front mantlet of the panther a round hitting the mantlet and then bouncing BACK into the gun would be VERY VERY rare. It is POSSIBLE, it could happen from the shell breaking up, BUT remember that the barrel on a Panther is quite thick considering the velocity and power behind the gun. Shrapnel fragments I would argue would not be able to penetrate the barrel.

Also keep in mind that a bouncing shell has retained a significant amount of it kenetic energy (see newtowns from ealier post).

I believe so far I have given VERY good arguments as to why gun damaged (sans direct barrel) hits to the mantlet were very rare, while all you can do is repeat yourself.

Jeff

[jshandorf]

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

/sarcasm on

That's right! Germans should never miss!

/sarcasm off

Saying "German tanks were always know for thier superior accurracy," is far too ambiguous. Are you saying no American in a Sherman could out shoot a German in a German tank? That's silly.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Geezus.. Have you EVER read anything about the German tanks on the East front?? They would pulverize russian tanks at 3km. Don't EVEN tell me the American Sherman could do that. I will laugh at you.

Jeff

[jshandorf]

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

Ummm... "a tank AP shell striking the mantel would have the same effect as a shell leaving the mantel" makes no sense. Are you trying to say firing a gun is as dangerous as being hot with the same gun? This is simply asinine. That's like claiming a bullet strinking the hand has the same effect as firing the same bullet from a handgun in your hand...

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No No No... It am taking about the kenetic energy. When you shoot a handgun the same amount of energy/force is put into the gun as that is sent into the bullet. Therefore IF the bullet you fired could knock someone off thier feet therefore YOU would be knocked off your feet firing it.

Jeff

[CavScout]

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

Cav,

If you look at the Panther the gun mantlet comprises over 90% of the front turret. A front turret therefore is almost always going to be a front mantlet hit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree which is why I find you statement "Heck, lets look at from a mathematical standpoint. Take the entire surface area that the mantlet takes up on a Panther. I would estimate it occupies probably around 10% of the surface are from a straight on perspective." suspect and all further calculations based on it suspect as well.

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

Man... I agreed with you before that direct hits on the barrel would obviously damage it. Can we just drop that part? I am talking about mantlet hits only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is irrelevent. CM models all types of gun damage in one abstraction, it does not specify what type it is. Figuring a % based on simply mantle hits simply can not be compared to whatever rate CM uses as it includes mantle hits but is not limited to it.

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

Also keep in mind that a bouncing shell has retained a significant amount of it kenetic energy (see newtowns from ealier post).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't take it wrong but those earlier posts do nothing to help you.

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

I believe so far I have given VERY good arguments as to why gun damaged (sans direct barrel) hits to the mantlet were very rare, while all you can do is repeat yourself.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, all you have given is your OPINON on why you THINK they would be rare. Don't confuse this with facts.

Cav

[CavScout]

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

Geezus.. Have you EVER read anything about the German tanks on the East front?? They would pulverize russian tanks at 3km. Don't EVEN tell me the American Sherman could do that. I will laugh at you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man.. one has to wonder why the Germans even lost... sounds like they were supermen and invincible.

[CavScout]

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

No No No... It am taking about the kenetic energy. When you shoot a handgun the same amount of energy/force is put into the gun as that is sent into the bullet. Therefore IF the bullet you fired could knock someone off thier feet therefore YOU would be knocked off your feet firing it.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course this fails to accound for how the force of the bullet leaving a firearm is spred out through the weapon's frame, absorbed by the body and even by the gas of the propelent and is not concentrated like the bullet into a much smaller area.

Much as apply force to a wall with your finger and nothing happens but when you apply the same force with a tack it is pushed into the wall.

Cav

[Philistine]

It seems that there's getting to be a bit of heat and not much light in this discussion.

Not that anyone asked , but I'll put my $.02 in. I think the biggest obstacle is that there has not been a clear indication of a problem. Other than anecdotal reports of "too many" gun hits (generally on german tanks). Personally, I don't have that impression from my playing, and I think much of the resistance those reporting perceived problems with the gun hits are receiving is from those who also don't necessarily see a problem.

So far, the only actual in-game systematic reports show a pretty low occurence of gun hits. BTS has been pretty reticent to publish their algorithms (and justifiably so, IMHO). I think before we can demand BTS take a look at something, there should be some clear indication that it is, in fact, a problem.

That's why some sort of test-range sounds like it would be appropriate. Until then, I doubt there's much to be gained by further disucssion.

Just my $.02

--Philistine

[Bastables]

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

Hmmm... How about this... Since so far there have been NO nurmerous accounts of the optics being vulnerable to mantlet hits then can't you say that it isn't an issue?

The shot trap, the weak transmision, and the boggie wheels locking up on the Panther A is documented on almost every web site talking about the Panther, so if the optics were an issue don't ya think SOMEONE would mention it?

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a specious argument, not to many people note how the traverse mechanism of the panther was so weak that at inclines greater than 20 degs the turret would swing towards gravity. So does the lack of discussion indicate that this problem never existed? Or the Nafgwhatsathing never existed because there is not a large amount of literature detailing it. The same thing could be said for the American rifle grenade. Or how about this: The British during the desert war did not tumble until 12 months later that the Germans used Face-hardened armour and therefore blamed their ‘poor’ tank gunnery. Therefore FH armour did not exist for the British for 12 months. Their shells were not shattering on measly 30mm armour no they were just poor shots. Or how about this when many people considered the earth flat, did it in fact make the earth flat? I mean I’ve always liked the Hindu mendala system of representing the world universe. Globes just aren’t chic. You’ve driven me to blithering idiocy how can you make such specious arguments. And yes I do have a passing knowledge of Karl Poppers critique of positivism.

Look to my signature, your words and embrace them!

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

From the jshandorf

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-12-2000).]

[jshandorf]

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

Of course this fails to accound for how the force of the bullet leaving a firearm is spred out through the weapon's frame, absorbed by the body and even by the gas of the propelent and is not concentrated like the bullet into a much smaller area.

Much as apply force to a wall with your finger and nothing happens but when you apply the same force with a tack it is pushed into the wall.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No it doesn't. The bullet leaves the gun. It is in your hand. If the bullet has enough force to knock a person off it's feet it would knock YOU off your feet. Period. Man, go back to school on this. You are wrong.

Your tack analogy is flaw. The tack has no inherient energy. It has only the energy/force you put into it by pushing. A gun and bullet works diferently. Think about it.

I typoed on the percent thing. I meant say that the mantle around the barrel (where the barrel extends from) makes up 10% of the overall front mantle. Sorry about the missunderstanding.

Jeff

[jshandorf]

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

Man.. one has to wonder why the Germans even lost... sounds like they were supermen and invincible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go read and learn. http://www.anyboard.net/plaboard/posts/233333.shtml

Jeff

[jshandorf]

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

What a specious argument, not to many people note how the traverse mechanism of the panther was so weak that at inclines greater than 20 degs the turret would swing towards gravity. So does the lack of discussion indicate that this problem never existed? Or the Nafgwhatsathing never existed because there is not a large amount of literature detailing it. The same thing could be said for the American rifle grenade. Or how about this British during the desert war did not tumble until onto the Germans use of Face-hardened armour and therefore blamed their ‘poor’ tank gunnery. Therefore FH herded armoured did not exist for the British for 12 months their shells were not shattering on measly 30mm armour no they were just poor shots. Or how about this when the many people considered the earth flat, did it in fact make the earth flat? I mean I’ve always liked the Hindu mendala system of representing the world universe. Globes just aren’t chic. You’ve driven me to blithering idiocy how can you make such specious argument. And yes I do have a passing knowledge of Karl Poppers critique of positivism.

Look to my signature, your words and embrace them!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh come on, Bastables. I wan't literally trying to prove my point with that, but the fact remains niether of us have come up with much as for factual documentation.

In this day and age of information and data I would have to be inclined that if there isn't some sort of research or proof on something then I wouldn't tout it as fact.

Are you just trying to be silly about the world being flat thing? I could point you to a few references that show it is spherical if you want.

Jeff

[Mark IV]

So, where's the data on how often gun hits occur in CM?

You "think" they're around 15% (of total armor hits, I guess?). You "know" that 8% is too high.

Actually, the stats in rune's article show that 8% of the total of damaged tanks exhibited gun damage, which is slightly different... I'll bet a few of those tanks had taken multiple hits, so it isn't necessarily 8% of total shots on target resulting in gun hits.

I will have to stage some massive armor QBs and investigate.

[CavScout]

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

No it doesn't. The bullet leaves the gun. It is in your hand. If the bullet has enough force to knock a person off it's feet it would knock YOU off your feet. Period. Man, go back to school on this. You are wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does a round striking a person leave a bruise, wearing body armor, yet no bruise is left on the hand of the firer?

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

Your tack analogy is flaw. The tack has no inherient energy. It has only the energy/force you put into it by pushing. A gun and bullet works diferently. Think about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are not so different. A bullent has not "inherient energy" and only has that imparted by the chemical reaction of the powder. How is that different?

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-12-2000).]

[Bastables]

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

Oh come on, Bastables. I wan't literally trying to prove my point with that, but the fact remains niether of us have come up with much as for factual documentation.

In this day and age of information and data I would have to be inclined that if there isn't some sort of research or proof on something then I wouldn't tout it as fact.

Are you just trying to be silly about the world being flat thing? I could point you to a few references that show it is spherical if you want.

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I suppose a battalion’s appreciation report listing the weakness inherent in mounting a sight in the mantle is irrelevant to the discussion. And so is the truncated history of German sighting development and mountings and the attempts by the Germans to minimize the problem. All of these drawn from primary sources, non factual because they contradict you and your subjective thoughts on the matter.

No Jeff you haven’t come up with a dam thing to support your argument while I’ve already put two pertaining to the discussion up. Instead you come up with ‘weird outta your arse calculations’ and specious statements that a direct hit is required to put a sight out of action. Did you know that there is a diameter around that tiny hole that can offer as little as 50% protection of the actual thickness involved. You don’t even need a direct hit on the hole to 'reach' in and break things that the hole hides because any penetration a calibre away will cave the hole in as the shell/shot plops through the weak area.

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

From the jshandorf

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-12-2000).]

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

So, where's the data on how often gun hits occur in CM?

You "think" they're around 15% (of total armor hits, I guess?). You "know" that 8% is too high. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In one pbem I am playing, I have had SEVEN TANKS (more than half my tanks) knocked out by gun hits from ARTILLERY!!!

Now I freely admit that I am considerably more unlucky than most (especially after yesterday whe 3 Shermans bounced 11 shells in a row of a Hetzer who killed all 3 tanks, and after today when my Jabo flew over four enemy tanks unprotected by AA and failed to hit a single tank before running out of gas), but that doesn't seem very ralistic to me

henri

[M Hofbauer]

"No it doesn't. The bullet leaves the gun. It is in your hand. If the bullet has enough force to knock a person off it's feet it would knock YOU off your feet. Period. Man, go back to school on this. You are wrong."

no he isn't.

I guess we all agree that the kinetic energy is the same, obviously (actio counterequal to reactio).

However, the buildup of the force is slower in the firing person, the person is prepared for firing the handgun, and the gun is held in such a position that the absorbing of the same kinetic energy is possible, whil that same kinetic energy in the target hits even faster, an unprepared position and in a (if it does) inopportune location.

If you fire a 44 magnum by holding it in a combat grip it will give you a nasty kick. If you hit some unprepared person at the right location it might very well knock that person over.

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

"Hehe nah u have some valid points mate but umm well be a bit nicer." (GAZ_NZ)

[Slapdragon]

We have evidence of sighting losses in tanks, we can also take a page from the

"A great many more Iraqi tanks had armament or motive kills that catastrophic destruction, but JFACC insisted that the tanks be "on their backs like a cockroach" before they were counted. (1)"

Weapon and Motive kills are common enough that they are given their own designation in military records, K-Kills and M-Kills (as opposed to K-Kills which is a catastrophic or crew killing, tank destroying kill. On American tanks, you just have the tank dead.

You notice A-Kills more because they happen with good non shattering hits that do not kill the tank, and those happen more on German tanks.

(1) Conduct of the Persian Gulf War--Final Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, April 1992) The comment in question is supposedly from General Norman Schwartzkopf

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

I guess we all agree that the kinetic energy is the same, obviously (actio counterequal to reactio).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even more important is the total area over which the force is applied, known domestically as foot-pounds, probably meter/kilos for the metrically inclined. If you apply 20 pounds of force to a one foot square, there will be a slight pressure. If you apply that same pressure to a one-millimeter square, you will poke a hole in a person.

A tank has 30 tons of inertia (not to mention damping buffers of various kinds) to absorb recoil. Take that same energy and apply it to a 75mm circle (actually far less area, thus higher focused pressure, at the hardened tip of the projectile before it collapses) and you poke holes in tanks. Some of them, anyway.

I just haven't had that many gun hits in CM.

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Posted by jshandorf:

so if the optics were an issue don't ya think SOMEONE would mention it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone did. Namely, the German army:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Posted by Bastables:

Extract from a report by I.Abeteilung/Panzer Regiment 2. (Panther) 13 Pz division 20 October 1943 ‘The telescopes of the T.Z.F. 12 gun sight break apart as result of gun hits on the mantlet. The expenditure of protective lenses for the T.F.Z.12 is very high.’ Also ‘the periscopes in the commanders cupola are un-usable after the turret is hit. Additional replacement periscopes are necessary.’ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another one you seem to have missed (something to do with Bastables?):

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

Lets take a look at Speilberger narratives of the tests involving fixed installation of the main gun to the superstructures of Veh, bear with me it’s a bit long. ‘ Firing trials in Kunnersdorf using a Sturmgeschutz with a 7.5cm L/48 gun without recoil were conducted on 7 March 1944. The gun was held in a compass gimbals inside a 100mm thick sloping armoured plate. This was reinforced by a vertical plate approx 150mm high and 20mm thick on the outer front plate.

97 rounds were fired, during which the driver’s periscope broke. The engine radiator sprung a leak. After each shot the StuG kicked back a few cm.’ this was a veh which had successive attempts at strengthening since April 1943 specifically to tolerate the stress involved and they still could not handle it. There are narratives of PII rolling back 190 cm, rear springs on the Hertzer failing so that it would rock back and forth like a drunk after every shot and sights breaking off and falling into the combat compartment of PIV’s. This is a pretty damming indication that armoured veh are not discreet masses things break, rupture and fall off when stress levels exceed tolerances, including by extension high velocity shells repeatedly slamming into a Tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is enough to end the kinetic energy/optics debate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Posted by jshandorf:

First off... What range are you doing this from? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Range was 1500m.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Posted by tero:

Yes. But for how long ? Indefinitely ? I have not been able to get them moving unless I give them a Reverse, Move or Fast Move command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although it doesn't directly say it, I believe the Hunt command will simply not work at all for vehicles with gun damage.

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

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[Guest rune]

Mark, you are of course, correct...but this number also did not account for tanks that got killed, AND had a gun hit, nor how many rounds fired for that to happen. WWII records just were NOT that accurate, much less the Soviet Union. I was lucky to get what I got. As, I said, just some rough numbers tossed out for all to consider....I would love to know how many rounds were actually fired from each side and how many were hits. This way I could compare to your Canadian Hamster Stuart...oh wait..that is the Peng thread...

Rune

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

So, where's the data on how often gun hits occur in CM?

You "think" they're around 15% (of total armor hits, I guess?). You "know" that 8% is too high.

Actually, the stats in rune's article show that 8% of the total of damaged tanks exhibited gun damage, which is slightly different... I'll bet a few of those tanks had taken multiple hits, so it isn't necessarily 8% of total shots on target resulting in gun hits.

I will have to stage some massive armor QBs and investigate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Mark IV]

Man, is it ever hard to get a gun hit in CM.

Last night I tried 3 different QB scenarios featuring armor, flat terrain, and variations on the theme.

In the opening turn of the first QB (2000 pt. meeting engagement, more like Kursk than Overlord), there must have been at least 200 AP rounds fired. The second turn was much quieter, as the Shermans were mostly burning by then. No gun hits anywhere.

I tried a mix of Axis vehicles and let the AI pick the Allies. Panthers, Mark IVs, Tigers, you name it. I included a Jagdpanzer, a Jagdpanther, and a Hetzer.

Another version of same with some more trees and terrain, and I was finally able to produce a "Gun Hit- No Serious Damage" to a Mark IV. So I figure about one GH for 4-500 rounds for the evening.

Allies were Vets, Axis Regulars. Why doesn't CM model enough Gun Hits in this highly vulnerable area of the AFV?