US Tungsten Availablity in 1.1

[Jeff Heidman]

The issue with the system as it currently stands is one of effect.

Given the overall lack of definitive information about the availability and use of these specialized rounds, I can't help but think that their use in CM is over-stated.

My feeling is that given the rather huge effect this has on the armor fight, it seems like a bad idea to presume that the 76mm armed vehicles would have enough T to last them through the fight, which they often do under the current system.

In my experience, most tanks in CM only get off half a dozen or so AT rounds during a typical game. Not all of these are or need to be T rounds. Given the short ranges and low densities you see in CM, by the time you fire of ten rounds, either your dead or your opponents armor is dead. Not always, but on average. That being the case, every 76mm armed Sherman toting 2-6 T rounds (which they now use intelligently) becomes a huge difference.

The 76mm gun goes from being mediocre to the best medium AT weapon in the game.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013436.html

Germanboy was in fine fettle, he seems a bit more bitter and twisted these days

OK carry on. Just leave the Brits out of it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe - those were the days. Too much work. Maybe I need some happy-happy pills. Or more sleep.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 01-18-2001).]

[:USERNAME:]

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

Patton issued something like 8 orders, one very terse, forbiding US tankers from carrying HVAP (he wanted to make sure most of it went to the M18 units) (Patton in the Lorraine Valley: A Case Study). If Pattons continual issuing of orders is to be believed, no M4s in the 3rd Army ever used them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The more I hear about Patton the more I wonder.

Supposedly he was instrumentel in the delay of the M26 and now he is castrating armor units.

Then you hear quotes like "Never tell a man how to get somewhere, just where he needs to be" but then he dictates what socks he has to wear..

Lewis

[Chupacabra]

I don't think this was ever answered, so here's a quick bump...

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Basebal351]

Thanks for the bump. It's surprising that Jeff makes some good points, and there's still not too much logic, and/or evidence to disprove what he is saying. Tungsten DOES make a big difference, espescially now that there is a BUG, that makes it even MORE EFFECTIVE against the sloped armor of German tanks like the Panther!

And if this proves anything, it's the fact that BTS isn't the FINAL word on CM, and the historical accuracty that they are trying to represent. They can just as easily make a mistake as any of us can!! And this tungsten issue just seems like too much of a crapshoot for me to take as 100% historical accuracy. They're saying that they're making a reasonable guess, and some of us are saying that we're making a reasonable guess that their reasonable guess is wrong.

And because they're BTS, many people are willing to unflinchingly take what they say as correct, bar-none.

Even if Shermans crews started out EVERY MORNING (any proof of that?) with 2 rounds of Tungsten, who's to say that they had those 2 rounds for EVERY single fight?? They could EASILY expend those rounds firing at a tank or two well BEFORE the main battle started, which is the part represented in CM. For tungsten rounds to be so prevalent, and so effective I would like to request a little factual evidence that they were used in such great abundance, and for EVERY battle that they participated in.

Thanks,

Jim

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351:

Even if Shermans crews started out EVERY MORNING (any proof of that?) with 2 rounds of Tungsten, who's to say that they had those 2 rounds for EVERY single fight?? They could EASILY expend those rounds firing at a tank or two well BEFORE the main battle started, which is the part represented in CM. For tungsten rounds to be so prevalent, and so effective I would like to request a little factual evidence that they were used in such great abundance, and for EVERY battle that they participated in.

Thanks,

Jim <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that it would be nice to find out as much as possible about actual tungsten usage. But I think your point about tungsten being used in every battle is not correct: if you play US against a German force armed with MKIVs and StuGs, you won't see the US tanks fire tungsten at all. (At least, I haven't seen them fire tungsten in those situations). But when they are up against Panthers and Tigers, etc., the tanks do tend to fire their tungsten.

The unrealistic bit is not, I suspect, tungsten usage, as much as it is that so many CM battles feature Panthers and Tigers, which means that almost every time you field a Sherman in CM, you face a big cat. Under these circumstances, yeah, HVAP usage is going to be higher. But it's due to the presence of the cats, not the mere fact that there was tungsten in the tank. On this point I have to agree with people who supported more frequent use of tungsten: what are they saving it for if not to use against the Panther or KT.

But the circumstances under which tungsten would be used is, of course, different from the question of whether it was available.

Of course, fixing the HVAP bug would be nice, too.

Oh, the other reason HVAP may seem too common is the simply the lack of a rarity factor in CM: there were comparatively (compared to the number of 75s) few Sherms armed with 76mm guns in the ETO, period, and of course these are the only tanks that can use the HVAP armor.

(edited to avoid double posting).

[This message has been edited by Andrew Hedges (edited 01-21-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

This is a tough subject. We know the US had the rounds, that they were given to tank destroyers, and that tank units got them also. We just do not know about quantities. American Logistics in World War II (1997) lists under "special ammunition" a 76mm HVAP and a 75,76, and 105mm WP ammo (not simulated in the game but loved by US tankers because of how deadly it was). The book notes: t"his ammunition was in heavy demand exceeding availability through Jan. 1945 which is a cryptic remark, but implies that we may need to consider a tungsten availability curve. Another cryptic remark is on a tank's "basic load", which is a single load of ammunition and includes: "ap, he, smoke, and 'special rounds'", but does not specify what sort of special rounds are inlcuded in a tanks load out. It does however say, "a special effort was made to get special rounds to the front, resulting in very small reserves that were depleted on occasions, most noticeably during the fighting in the Ardennes."

The most frustrating thing is that even though the sources I am looking at have US tank units accounting for a percentage of the special ammunition issued, it never gives hard numbers per month for a unit. This may be a subject that we just have to go with BTS lacking any other evidence to contrary. Certainly plenty of evidence exists that tankers tried to get those rounds. The 0-1-2-3 round load out seems to be the best solution for tanks at least unless someone can come up with better evidence one way or another.

[Guest Big Time Software]

There is very little hard data on tungsten availability. So we have to go with the snippets we could find. Here are two that I remember off the top of my head.

Hunicutt's Sherman p.213 states the figure of 10,000 HVAP (tungsten) shells produced per month. This is easily enough (potentially) to have several for each active 76mm gun in service each month (many more than CM actually provides). Since it was stated U.S. policy to send this ammunition exclusively to tank destroyer units (76mm antitank guns, M-10, M-18, and M-36s) those guns get much more of it than the regular Shermans (see below). But the Sherman crews, one way or another, always managed to get their hands on some.

Michael Green's M4 Sherman, p.105: "This round... was known as the 76mm high-velocity armor-piercing (HVAP) round. As soon as these rounds were manufactured, they were transported by air to Europe and then to the tankers in the field." (boldface is mine)

Further, the book states, "Maj. Paul A. Bane, Jr., from the 3rd Tank Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment, stated in a report: 'Our tank crews have had some success with the HVAP 76mm ammunition. However, at no time have we been able to secure more than five rounds per tank and in recent actions this has been reduced to a maximum of two rounds, and in many tanks all this type has been expended without being replaced.'" (boldface is mine)

In CM, tungsten is distributed like this for the Americans in September-December 1944.

M-10, M-18, M-36 (Tank Destroyers): 0-6 rounds given, average = 2.5

76mm Shermans: 0-3 rounds given, average = 0.5

In CM, 76mm Shermans in 1944 (from September on) average one half of one tungsten round per tank. I hardly think that's excessive.

No Americans have tungsten before September 1944. In 1945, the Shermans start to average 2.5 rounds each, and the tank destroyers average 4.5 each.

Also keep in mind that an upcoming bug fix will significantly reduce tungsten's effectiveness against well-sloped armor.

If anyone has evidence that we have provided too much tungsten, please state it.

Charles