russellmz Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 I played 5000 worth of Super Pershings against Tigers. The Pershings had a field day. I never saw so many ricchocets off an Allied tank in a game or so many burning Tigers. Anyway I didn't notice the column of 10 Tigers & Panthers in the nearby village. So one of my Pershings got hit in the tracks and gun and was stopped dead. Five of the 10 Tigers and Panthers started using the Pershing as target practice. [A lot of yellow targeting lines on that one Pershing] Anyway it took 41 frontal hits from 88mm guns before the crew broke and ran and then the game ended. [Was this smart of them? Some armor flaking happened but they suffered no causaulties until two of them got machine-gunned running for cover.] Why was the 88mm no good against the Pershing? I got 21 Tigers and Panthers and lost only 5 Pershings in that Quick Battle(aka Great Village Tiger Shoot) And has anyone ever had a tank take more hits or am I a record holder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 Was the Pershing up on a hill with the enemy tanks below? If so, being up high would have helped his armor by sloping it more, increasing the chances of a riccochet. Was he hull down or partially hidden from the enemy? ------------------ There is nothing certain about war except that one side won't win. -Ian Hamilton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted September 7, 2000 Author Share Posted September 7, 2000 Total f-ing flat ground. Perfect view for targeting. Hull and turrent in the open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 That's not the most hits. I had an enemy Panther take well over 60 hits from a 57mm AT gun, a Sherman Jumbo (75), a M24 Chaffee and an M8 Greyhound. It also took at least one hit from a Shaped charge round from a 105mm hozitzer. All of these units fired off all of their AP rounds at this Panther until the Chaffee finally flanked it and took it out with 3 AP remaining. The Panther had it's gun damaged by the Jumbo (I believe). So this thing was basically a mobile pillbox. I had nothing that could take it out frontally. It made for an interesting battle. ------------------ And if we abandon any platform, I can assure you it will not be the Macintosh. -Steve My website! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colin: That's not the most hits. I had an enemy Panther take well over 60 hits from a 57mm AT gun, a Sherman Jumbo (75), a M24 Chaffee and an M8 Greyhound. It also took at least one hit from a Shaped charge round from a 105mm hozitzer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ha! That's nothing. If you want ricochets, I got yer ricochets right here, buddy! 52 pings off the frontal armor of a Churchill VIII in ONE SINGLE TURN! Try to beat *that*. Ricochet Alley can be found at: http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/ Ok, so it's completely unfair (hey, I didn't force the AI to choose those weapon types). But still a lot of fun. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Der Unbekannte Jäger Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 Wow and I thought I had gotten a new record, but it seems I am badly beaten. I had a Stug III and a Churchill VII square off against each other... okay so my Stug was nothing more than a decoy but hey! Anyway the stug actually lasted 3 min's of continued barrages from the Churchill, to say the least I was surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted September 7, 2000 Author Share Posted September 7, 2000 Was the Super Pershing's front actually that bad-ssed against the vaunted 88mm ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz: Was the Super Pershing's front actually that bad-ssed against the vaunted 88mm ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats a good question so we at at what rnage? against what degree of sloping armour as some of you well know there are a few here who question how accuratly the "vaunted 88mm" has been modeled in CM. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 Super Pershing's front armor: 152/0 turret 122/46 upper hull 96/53 lower hull 88/L56 penetration @ 100 meters: 154^0 118^30 59^60 The Tiger could penetrate the Pershing's turret at 100m and a little beyond, but could not penetrate the hull frontaly at all. ------------------ 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted September 7, 2000 Author Share Posted September 7, 2000 Thanks for the answers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertanker Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 I'm in the middle of reading "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II." by Belton Cooper (thanks to whoever recommended this, it is a great book). Cooper's duty was to coordinate the recovery and repair of damaged equipment with Combat Command B of the 3rd Armored Division. He says their loss rate of tanks was 580%, and is very critical of the Sherman, saying it was inferior in every way to the German tanks. When the Pershings arrived, he was quite pleased. I don't know how accurate his recollections are, but he did see plenty of knocked-out armor to judge things by. Cooper's unit received only one Super Pershing, and he was trained as a naval architect, so the task of adding armor to it fell to him. See pp. 230-234. He writes that they found a German steel-fabricating shop, and it had several pieces of 1.5" thick boiler plate which they attached to the Super Pershing. "We wound up with four inches of cast armor on the original glacis plate and two inch-and-a-half pieces of boiler plate with an air gap in between. We thought that even though the boiler plate was softer, the lamination and the lowered angle of incidence would help German projectiles ricochet." [He says earlier the added plate was angled at 52 degrees.] "We then cut a section from the faceplate of a knocked-out German Panther and trimmed it to three and a half inches thick by five feet long by two feet wide. We cut a large hole in the middle to accommodate the gun tube and two smaller holes on each side to accommodate the coaxial machine gun and the telescopic site." My favorite part is his story of testing the T15E1 gun, which he says had a muzzle velocity of 3,850 fps, "some 600 feet per second grater than the 88mm KwK43 gun mounted on the German PzKw VIb King Tiger." [i don't know if those numbers are accurate.] They used a knocked-out Jadgpanzer IV as a target, glacis plate toward the Super Pershing. "The distance to our target was approximately a mile and a half." The first shot was a hit. "When it hit the target, sparks shot about sixty feet into the air, as though a giant grinding wheel had hit a piece of metal. [Paragraph] When we looked at the target, I was dumbfounded. The 90mm projectile penetrated four inches of armor; went through a five-inch final drive differential shaft, the fighting compartment, and the rear partition of the fighting compartment; penetrated the four-and-a-half inch crankshaft of the Maybach engine and the one-inch rear armor plate; and dug itself into the ground so deep that we could not locate it. Although we had been told by the ordnance officers from Aberdeen that the tank gun could penetrate thirteen inches of armor at a hundred yards, it was still difficult to believe this awesome power. We all realized we had a weapon that could blast the hell out of even the most powerful German Mark VI Tiger." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 Good post supertanker. ------------------ And if we abandon any platform, I can assure you it will not be the Macintosh. -Steve My website! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Robertson Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Supertanker: I'm in the middle of reading "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II." by Belton Cooper (thanks to whoever recommended this, it is a great book). Cooper's duty was to coordinate the recovery and repair of damaged equipment with Combat Command B of the 3rd Armored Division. He says their loss rate of tanks was 580%, and is very critical of the Sherman, saying it was inferior in every way to the German tanks. When the Pershings arrived, he was quite pleased. I don't know how accurate his recollections are, but he did see plenty of knocked-out armor to judge things by. Cooper's unit received only one Super Pershing, and he was trained as a naval architect, so the task of adding armor to it fell to him. See pp. 230-234. He writes that they found a German steel-fabricating shop, and it had several pieces of 1.5" thick boiler plate which they attached to the Super Pershing. "We wound up with four inches of cast armor on the original glacis plate and two inch-and-a-half pieces of boiler plate with an air gap in between. We thought that even though the boiler plate was softer, the lamination and the lowered angle of incidence would help German projectiles ricochet." [He says earlier the added plate was angled at 52 degrees.] "We then cut a section from the faceplate of a knocked-out German Panther and trimmed it to three and a half inches thick by five feet long by two feet wide. We cut a large hole in the middle to accommodate the gun tube and two smaller holes on each side to accommodate the coaxial machine gun and the telescopic site." My favorite part is his story of testing the T15E1 gun, which he says had a muzzle velocity of 3,850 fps, "some 600 feet per second grater than the 88mm KwK43 gun mounted on the German PzKw VIb King Tiger." [i don't know if those numbers are accurate.] They used a knocked-out Jadgpanzer IV as a target, glacis plate toward the Super Pershing. "The distance to our target was approximately a mile and a half." The first shot was a hit. "When it hit the target, sparks shot about sixty feet into the air, as though a giant grinding wheel had hit a piece of metal. [Paragraph] When we looked at the target, I was dumbfounded. The 90mm projectile penetrated four inches of armor; went through a five-inch final drive differential shaft, the fighting compartment, and the rear partition of the fighting compartment; penetrated the four-and-a-half inch crankshaft of the Maybach engine and the one-inch rear armor plate; and dug itself into the ground so deep that we could not locate it. Although we had been told by the ordnance officers from Aberdeen that the tank gun could penetrate thirteen inches of armor at a hundred yards, it was still difficult to believe this awesome power. We all realized we had a weapon that could blast the hell out of even the most powerful German Mark VI Tiger."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 13 inch is an overstatement. Thats 330mm of armour. The Most powerfull version of the 90 could penetrate 240mm at 500 metres. Problible slightly more at 100 metres. Slightly better than the 88 fireing similar ammo, APCR. The MV difference stated between the US90 and the German 88 was that for the 88 on the tiger. Either way the big guns from the end of the second world war were all over kills for the tanks of the time, epecically firing tungsten rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 Well, either CM's modeling of the T15E1 gun is way off or Cooper's info is wrong. All data is from CM: T15E1 (Super Pershing) 3202 fps muzzle velocity Penetration at 2000m: 155^0 124^30 60^60 88/L71 (KT) 3340 fps muzzle velocity Penetration at 2000m: 157^0 120^30 60^60 As you can see the Pershing gun is actually slower than the 88, though the long range penetration is very similar. Tungsten, of course, would be different. Perhaps they were using tungsten rounds in Cooper's story. ------------------ 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 KwK.43 Pzgr.39/43 APCBC *1018 m/s CM Pen @ 30^: 100m - 177mm 500m - 165mm *No idea why CM's KwK.43 Pzgr.39 MV is rated at 1018m/s it should be 1000m/s. Pzgr.40/43 APCR 1130 m/s WA Pruf Data @ 30^ as CM doesnt model Pzgr.40 in German tanks: 100m - 237mm 500m - 217mm 90mm M26 Pershing CM T33 APCBC 845m/s CM Pen @ 30^ 100m - 147mm 500m - 137mm M304 APCR-T 1022 m/s CM Pen @ 30^ 100m - 226mm 500m - 221mm T26E4 Super Pershing 90mm 90mm APCBC 976m/s CM Pen @ 30^ 100m - 174mm 500m - 162mm 90mm APCR-T MV ? CM Pen @ 30^ 100m - 256mm 500m - 231mm Regards, John Waters ---------- "die verdammte Jabos". [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check6 Posted September 7, 2000 Share Posted September 7, 2000 *No idea why CM's KwK.43 Pzgr.39 MV is rated at 1018m/s it should be 1000m/s. LOL... that's a difference of 18 m/s and less than two percent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Check6: LOL... that's a difference of 18 m/s and less than two percent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Your point being ? . Regards, John Waters -------------- "die verdammte Jabos". [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: *No idea why CM's KwK.43 Pzgr.39 MV is rated at 1018m/s it should be 1000m/s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe. I wouldn't be yelling that too loud, since some people around here think it's underpowered already (penetration wise). The last thing they would want is for Charles to knock off 18 mps ------------------ 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 [This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 09-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted September 8, 2000 Share Posted September 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: Hehe. I wouldn't be yelling that too loud, since some people around here think it's underpowered already (penetration wise). The last thing they would want is for Charles to knock off 18 mps <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROFL Vanir don't get me started . Seriously though I don't think anyone would be mad. I think everyone just wants the KwK.43 to be modeled realisticly for lack of a better word, so if they shave off 18m/s so what, it wont screw up the KwK.43's Pzgr.39/43 penetraion any more then it already is, will it .... Regards, John Waters P.S. Couldn't resist ......... ------------------ Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts