Tank vulnerability (oh no, not again) and another small wish

[Scipio]

First the wish:

Is it possible to show the weapons in the unit description with the correct name instead only the caliber and V0? For example, PzKmpf IV were equiped with the 7,5 cm Kw.K.40 L/24 (~til June 42), L/43 (~from March 42), L/48 (~ 1943?) (with different penetration/accuracy)

I posted this already somewhere else, don't want to start a war, but maybe you find this interessting. This was a test made bei the WaPrü1 (Weapon Test Department) at October 5, 1944, about the penetration ability of the Panzer IV with 7,5 Kw.K.40 L/48

Penetration possible vs ... at a distance of ... meters at frontal hit with a angle of 60°. (theoretical calculation, I assume on the battlefield it wasn't that good)

T34-85 = 700m

KW85 = 900m

JS 122 - 100m

Cromwell - 1500m

Churchill - 500m

Sherman A2 75mm - 800m

Sherman A4 76mm - 800m

The same tanks was (in theory again) able to penetrate a Pz IV (G,H,J) at that distance (again frontal hit, 60°)

T34-85 = 1500m

KW85 = 1500m

JS 122 - 2500m

Cromwell - 100m

Churchill - 100m

Sherman A2 75mm - 100m

Sherman A4 76mm - 1600m

The source for all info is 'Panzerkampfwagen IV by Spielberger/Doyle/ Jentz, Motorbuchverlag, Germany 1998)

Well, I havn't run tests in CM to proof this yet, but I have the feeling...

[Kurtz]

What has the 60° got to do with the Pz IV?

The armour slope of the Pz IV is only 10° in the front. Could this be the reason why they are so "easily" killed (compared to the table), even by Shermans with 75 mm guns?

It is possible that the US 75 mm gun needs to be within 100 m to penetrate an 80 mm armour plate angled at 60°, but the comparision

with the Pz IV is not entirely relevant.

[Scipio]

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

What has the 60° got to do with the Pz IV?

The armour slope of the Pz IV is only 10° in the front. Could this be the reason why they are so "easily" killed (compared to the table), even by Shermans with 75 mm guns?

It is possible that the US 75 mm gun needs to be within 100 m to penetrate an 80 mm armour plate angled at 60°, but the comparision

with the Pz IV is not entirely relevant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it means the shell hits with a side angle of 60°.

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Andreas]

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

No, it means the shell hits with a side angle of 60°.

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Kurtz's point was that since the Pz IV did not have 60 degree sloped armour anywhere, calculating the armour penetration of the enemy gun against that angle is a wee bit pointless. Maybe you had a typo in there.

[Scipio]

My English...my English...

Kann das mal jemand in's englische übersetzen:

Nicht die Panzerung hat eine Neigung von 60°, sondern das Geschoß trifft in einem Winkel von 60° auf die Panzerung.

[Andrew H.]

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

My English...my English...

Kann das mal jemand in's englische übersetzen:

Nicht die Panzerung hat eine Neigung von 60°, sondern das Geschoß trifft in einem Winkel von 60° auf die Panzerung.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"It's not that the armor has a 60 degree slope. It's that the shell hits the armor at an angle of 60 degrees."

A better translation would probably use the word "deflection" somewhere. .

Note, too, that sometimes a German 60 degree angle is the equivalent of a US 30 degree angle because of where they start counting from. But I'm not sure if this is always the case, or if it is the case here.

[Wolfe]

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

Is it possible to show the weapons in the unit description with the correct name instead only the caliber and V0? For example, PzKmpf IV were equiped with the 7,5 cm Kw.K.40 L/24 (~til June 42), L/43 (~from March 42), L/48 (~ 1943?) (with different penetration/accuracy)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in CM, but CM2 may have a good deal more info. Check out the T-34 pic over at CMHQ; it shows which 76mm gun it has (L/31).

http://www.combatmission.com/CM2/pics/CGM_T-34.jpg

I don't think there are any pics yet of unit stats to indicate what other info (if any) may be included in the unit descriptions in CM2. The gun length is a good start, though.

If you want info for guns in CM, I did my best to ID them for my charts. See link to my CM website below.

- Chris

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[dragonwagon]

This info is about the Sherman '75'

Armed with an M3 75mm gun fitted with a gyro stabilizerfor one axis (elevation)stabilization.The standard anti-tank round was the M61 APC, which could penetrate 68mm of armour at 500 meters and 6omm of armour at 1000 meters . The round wieghed 20lb of which the projectile was 15lb.

From: The Sherman Tank published by Osprey, Vanguard

I will see what I can dig up on the MK IV.

[rexford]

When Germans indicate 60° impact, they are talking about a shot with 30° side angle, firer is sitting 30° from straight-on against the target.

If hit is on enemy tank front hull, 60° angle to Germans is a firer sitting 30° from direction of hull facing.

[rexford]

PzKpfw IVH had 80mm of face-hardened armor on the front hull at 10°, hit it at 30° side angle with 75mm APCBC and resistance is 102mm at 0° of face-hardened armor.

75mm APCBC penetrates 102mm of face-hardened armor at 100m and 0°, which is an exact match with the data for Sherman 75mm vs PzKpfw IVH at 100m and 30° side angle (face-hardened armor).

When 76mm APCBC hits 80mm at 10° at 30° side angle, resistance is 102mm at 0°, Sherman 76mm penetrates at 1100m.

[rexford]

If those penetration ranges are calculations, use them with care. Sherman armor on 56° glacis tanks is usually flawed, T34 front hull is high hardness and brittle on 75mm hits, none of this is usually included in WW II calculations.

[Scipio]

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

If those penetration ranges are calculations, use them with care. Sherman armor on 56° glacis tanks is usually flawed, T34 front hull is high hardness and brittle on 75mm hits, none of this is usually included in WW II calculations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'use with care' - you mean the results on the battlefield are usually not so good like in the calculation, or generally different, so the result on battlefield could be also better?

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Andreas]

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

'use with care' - you mean the results on the battlefield are not usually not so good like in the calculation, or generally different, so the result on battlefield could be also better?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe he means they could be better, since the armour on the tanks in question was more vulnerable due to its quality than the thickness would suggest.

[Scipio]

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

I believe he means they could be better, since the armour on the tanks in question was more vulnerable due to its quality than the thickness would suggest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My book says

'Der Panzer IV (mit KwK 7,5 L40)war dem Sherman mit 75mm M3 Kanone zu jeder Zeit überlegen.'

'The Pz IV (with KwK 7,5 L40) was at all times superior to the Sherman with 7,5 M3 gun'

I also read 'Stalingrad' (Anthony Beaver), a quotation from the Russian tankers about the lent-lease Sherman 'They are useless, thin armor, bad engine...'

Well, I won't turn this into a discussion about the PzIV vs Sherman, I only have the details for the PzIV (I must purchase the other books too ). But I wonder why the results are so different in CM. I haven't tested it yet, but I guess the Shermans take out the PzIV from MUCH higher distances.

(use my translation with care )

[Ben Galanti]

A lot of the Sherman kills on Pz IVs (purely, in my experienct, that is) are through the turret though, which is more thinly armored.

The CM penetration values for the Shermans 75mm are 98mm at 100m at 0 degrees, which is actually _lower_ then what Rexford states.

Now, the other issue is whether the Pz IV is 30 degrees off angle, that makes a huge difference as opposed to being straight on.

Ben

[Andreas]

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

My book says

'Der Panzer IV (mit KwK 7,5 L40)war dem Sherman mit 75mm M3 Kanone zu jeder Zeit überlegen.'

'The Pz IV (with KwK 7,5 L40) was at all times superior to the Sherman with 7,5 M3 gun'

I also read 'Stalingrad' (Anthony Beaver), a quotation from the Russian tankers about the lent-lease Sherman 'They are useless, thin armor, bad engine...'

Well, I won't turn this into a discussion about the PzIV vs Sherman, I only have the details for the PzIV (I must purchase the other books too ). But I wonder why the results are so different in CM. I haven't tested it yet, but I guess the Shermans take out the PzIV from MUCH higher distances.

(use my translation with care )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do yourself a favour

DL the operation/battle by Helge (DesertFox) called Cintheaux Totalize. There you will have a lot of Shermans shoot at a lot of Panzer IVs. The Panzer IV takes out the Sherman at 1,800+m in that fight. The Sherman does not

Edit: Like all really good scenarios, available at Der Kessel...

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[Scipio]

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

Do yourself a favour

DL the operation by Helge (DesertFox) called Cintheaux Totalize. There you will have a lot of Shermans shoot at a lot of Panzer IVs. The Panzer IV takes out the Sherman at 1,800+m in that ops. The Sherman does not <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got it - will test

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

A lot of the Sherman kills on Pz IVs (purely, in my experienct, that is) are through the turret though, which is more thinly armored.

The CM penetration values for the Shermans 75mm are 98mm at 100m at 0 degrees, which is actually _lower_ then what Rexford states.

Now, the other issue is whether the Pz IV is 30 degrees off angle, that makes a huge difference as opposed to being straight on.

Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes - but I'm not sure if or how it's modelt in CM? The units data doesn't show something about the angle to target...

[Pzman]

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

Yes - but I'm not sure if or how it's modelt in CM? The units data doesn't show something about the angle to target...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The unit data isn't a grog table. Its so people (like me) who know nuthing about armor and how (other then sloped armor) works.