Are King Tigers Modelled Correctly?

[JasonC]

Examining the matter still closer, the case gets pretty thin for this 37mm vs. KT story. The only two German units known to be equipped with King Tigers in the west by the date involved, December 1944, were the 501 (SS) and 506 (Heer) heavy panzer battalions. Both took part in the Ardennes offensive, the former with 1 SS Panzer Corps (including a company with Peiper's spearhead), and the latter with the center 5th Pz Army prong (2 Pz, Lehr, 116 Pz and 9 Pz in second line). All other Tiger battalions were in the east (for one), and most of the others still had Tiger Is until 1945 anyway (for another).

But 92nd Cav was with 12th Armored in Alsace, not in the path of the Bulge offensive. It was more than 100 miles away from either unit. Moreover, the German counterattacks in Alsace had not begun - the first started on 31 December, by which time the 92nd was back out of the line doing maintenance. The only identifiable armor units in the whole southern sector beforehand, were 17th SS Pz Gdr, 21st Pz, and 10th SS. 10th SS at the time had only a single Panzer battalion, half Panther and half Pz IV (it was rebuilt in January to 2 battalions). 17th SS used StuG in its Panzer battalion 17. There is no record of 21 Pz ever having Tigers.

Furthermore, the period in question was near the first combat engagement of the 92nd Cav, within a week of them entering combat. So it is highly likely the troops didn't yet know a Tiger from any other German tank. I think the case has gone from "not proven" to "highly unlikely".

[Chad Harrison]

in a PBEM recently, my opponet bought a KT and a bunch of support vehicles (spw 251/9's, AC, ect). i was able to dispatch most of the support vehicles, but i had lost my only 76mm gun (hellcat) to a puma shot as he was hunting the cat. all i had left was sherman (one was a 105mm). i was intimidated by the beast, but had no choice. i rushed the sucker from all sides. one shot was fired. it was my sherman 105 who got a side hit with a HEAT round. flammed the sucker! i had never seen a king uberhugerthanlife tiger brew up before. im just glad i was on the happy end of it.

how often that happens from the side is fairly often from what i can tell with around 75mm guns. play king tigers like you would a panther and you wont have any problems. (id rather have a jagdpanther personally)

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

in a PBEM recently, my opponet bought a KT and a bunch of support vehicles (spw 251/9's, AC, ect). i was able to dispatch most of the support vehicles, but i had lost my only 76mm gun (hellcat) to a puma shot as he was hunting the cat. all i had left was sherman (one was a 105mm). i was intimidated by the beast, but had no choice. i rushed the sucker from all sides. one shot was fired. it was my sherman 105 who got a side hit with a HEAT round. flammed the sucker! i had never seen a king uberhugerthanlife tiger brew up before. im just glad i was on the happy end of it.

<hr></blockquote>

This has been discussed, the sides of the KT are also too vulnerable to the Bazooka. For more fun, try it with the British 95mm HC.

Anyway, the reason is the armour quality rating which effectivly makes all sides of the KT thinner, where, accouring to posters in related threads, the flat and plain side armour plates shouldn't suffer from production problems as much as the more detailed parts would. In other words, CMBO would need seperate quality modifiers for different parts of the tank. I can dig that thread up if anyone wants (definitivly easier than the 37mm quote - BTW, I am pretty sure a Stuart, not Greyhound was named).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

play king tigers like you would a panther and you wont have any problems. (id rather have a jagdpanther personally)<hr></blockquote>

Well, the KT doesn't go where I want in the time I want

I agree with the Jagdpanther, but when I play with one I have to fear the British 95mm HC, which is possibly overmodeled. A 95mm Cromwell can attack the Jagdpanther at will, only risk is the lower hit probability, but it has a faster turret and you can get almost two for one JP.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[JasonC]

Good point about the 95mm HEAT. In fact, it seems to be grossly overmodeled, and the overmodeling appears to be based on national testing differences. The Brits rate the 95mm HEAT lower than the 105mm HEAT, in their own tests of both. But they have the 105mm HEAT penetrating far more armor than the US reports it as penetrating - possibly due to average vs. perfect impact angle issues, or something. CM uses the US 105mm HEAT numbers and the British 95mm HEAT numbers, and just ignores the British reports on the 105mm HEAT.

If the 105mm HEAT is correctly modeled in CM, the 95mm is grossly overmodeled. If the 95mm is close to right, the 105mm HEAT is grossly undermodeled. I think the former is more likely, based on combat accounts of 105mm HEAT, which apparently could KO Tiger Is from the side, but failed to do so from the front (Sicily and Italy cases, vs. Herman Goering Tigers). Which fits the US 105mm report, but not the British one.

[MikeyD]

The discussion of 37mm kills from the side and rear has nothing to do with front aspect King Tiger turret penetrations using 76mm tungsten.

I've seen stories of Panther killed with turret front hits, maybe a story or two about lower hull penetrations on a KT, but I've NEVER heard of a turret front pentration, tungsten or no tungsten.

This is the only frustrating part of the game for me. I'll take a proper side-shot kill like a man, but not from the front - not on a KT turret.

[Redwolf]

I have found the quote of the top hit and I was completely wrong, noone was claiming Stuart top hits. My memory just mixed up several posts into an "interesting" composition.

Not that a forum-only quote had much value...

[Chad Harrison]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

Well, the KT doesn't go where I want in the time I want

<hr></blockquote>

thats why i never buy them. to me the disaster of losing a KT is not worth those points. i would rather have two mark IV and a hetzer to loose! more of my tanks means more exploisions for me to watch :eek:

i have noticed also that the 95mm HEAT rounds are deadly little suckers. im no grog and dont know any specs, but in the game they can take out all german armour from the side, and dont forget everyones favorite "gun hit"!

[jshandorf]

In one game I had one Panther and one JadgPanther KOed from the FRONT from ranges around 500 meters to 800 meters with that damn 95mm HOLLOW. I have a had time believing German tanks were so superior when 95mm HOLLOW KOs them so easily IMO. Also it cost me the game overall.

Jeff

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>CM uses the US 105mm HEAT numbers and the British 95mm HEAT numbers, and just ignores the British reports on the 105mm HEAT.<hr></blockquote>

Uhm... we didn't use either figure! All penetration values are equation based, not test data based. Dang, I thought 2 years later I would have to stop repeating myself, but I guess not So I might as well repeat myself about the myth of German armor invicibility...

The reason why German heavies are so easily lost in CM is because people totally misuse them. Most of this is understandable because CM is a game with no ramifications for screwing up besides maybe losing the battle. But in real life commanders didn't put themselves in harms way like players do. And because of that, there is a far greater chance of a heavy tank KO in CM than there really was in real life.

To empahsize this reality, I found this recently.

Report from Inspector General of Panzertruppen (Sept. 44) regarding a Report from Tiger Commanders about IS-2 tanks:

"A time when there are 12.2cm tank guns and 5.7cm [my note... what the heck?] anttank guns on the Eastern Front just like the 9.2cm antitank/aircraft guns on the Western Front and in Italy, the Tiger can no longer disregard the tactical principles that apply to other types of tanks.

Also, just like the other tanks, a few Tigers cannot drive up to the crest of a ridge line to observe the terrain. [my note... how many players do you see try this? ] In just such a situation, three Tigers received direct hits and were destroyed by 12.2cmm sehlls resulting in all but two of the crew members beting killed.

...

Instead, it is especially important for Tiger units to pay special attention to the general combat principles applicable to tank-versus-tank combat"

There is other stuff in there as well of interest, for example instructing single Tigers to RETREAT when facing JS-2 tanks, etc.

Basically, this is a GERMAN report, taken from early in CM's timeframe, that specifically states that Tigers aren't what they used to be. That they are now vulnerable and need to stop behaving like the rest of the battlefield can not hurt them. So until players start paying attention to the real world lessons the Germans learned... there will be a lot more dead German heavies on the battlefield

Another reason for the losses is that the Allied tankers have no serious fear of the big monsters. In reality, they often scooted from direct confrontations with them. CMBB's new vehicle morale will better simulate this.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Jeff wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In one game I had one Panther and one JadgPanther KOed from the FRONT from ranges around 500 meters to 800 meters with that damn 95mm HOLLOW. I have a had time believing German tanks were so superior when 95mm HOLLOW KOs them so easily IMO. Also it cost me the game overall.<hr></blockquote>

And the 17 pounder and long 76mm guns were available to the allies in greater numbers earlier than they chose to use. If they had had them they could have dealt with a wide range of German tanks a lot safer and with better results. But the introduction was STILL slow. Point is that the 95mm gun you speak of was rare. The big German tanks were also rare. Having one go up against the other was therefore rare. In fact, does anybody even know of a single case wehre these two types actually met in combat?

This is why "I don't see tons of pictures/AARs of real KTs knocked out by bazookas" doesn't mean anything. Nothing, zip, nadda. Why? Because German tankers did not like to get in and mix it up with American infantry! They generally retreated if they this was happening. So unless gamer behavior 100% mirrors real world behavior, you are going to see different results in each.

ESPECIALLY because Rarity is not present in CMBO. Too many people playing with too many heavy German tanks in too many "unrealistic" situations with too many other "unrealistic" variables tossed in does NOT somehow magically equate to real life.

Everything is a matter of perspective folks. Distort one side of the equation and expect the other side to not match up. So trying to draw direct, qunatifiable conclusions when things are not in balance is an exercise in futility. It simply doesn't work.

Steve

[Pzman]

Steve thank you for once again bring order to this masses.

[M Hofbauer]

Is that report referring to the Tiger I or Tiger II (aka Königstiger, IVB)? If it's referring to the slab-sided Tiger I no wonder.

Steve, I see your points but I think the main problem of poor übertank performance lies elsewhere. Which is, that apart from that technical minutiae (plate quality, allied AP performance of some weapons etc. pp.; for example, the hollow charge munitions have *specific* armor penetration capabilities which are not only results of diameter; you seem to equate diameter with AP performance, which is generally true, but then it also depends a lot on the design of the shaped charge itself) CMBO does not allow them to successfully perform in the long-range standoff gunnery which they preferred so much (and which they preferred historically). Partly due to terrain, conceded, but mostly because the CMBO ballistics/to-hit formula is tailored for the close fighting below half a mile and does not accurately represent true conditions for long-range engagements, nor gun/optics characteristics (a 37mm on a Greyhound is better than a PzIV's 7.5cm KwK and just about as accurate as a Nashorn's 88mm, apparently due to accuracy being based on Vo (??)).

Anyway, all this just IMHO.

It's still a damn fine game. Excuse me but I gotta get back to playing it

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The reason why German heavies are so easily lost in CM is because people totally misuse them.

I think some of the seeming misuse is brought on by the lack of psychological impact on the Allied AI tankers. The player expects the Allied tankers to soil their pants. Instead they act like the automatons they are, not really caring what they are up against. Their aim is not affected by sweatty palms and fragile nerves.

.....instructing single Tigers to RETREAT when facing JS-2 tanks

Basically, this is a GERMAN report, taken from early in CM's timeframe, that specifically states that Tigers aren't what they used to be.

The way I read it it states the opposing armour (HW and tactics ?) is not what it used to be. Tactical principles were mentioned, not HW specs. There is a difference. I saw nothing that implied the combat capabilities of the Tiger itself had diminished (like the penetrating power or accuracy of the 88 diminishing), only that one specific vehicle (IS-2) was better left alone if it was not possible to use appropriate team work to outsmart the enemy formation. The Tiger was a large tank which made it a large target.

That they are now vulnerable and need to stop behaving like the rest of the battlefield can not hurt them.

Yes. But does that refer to the inferior quality of the armour or the increased capability of the enemy assets, especially the number of large bore (in this case the 122mm gun on the IS-2 in particular) weapons present in the battlefield ? What about the 85mm armed T-34 and SU-85 ?

Another reason for the losses is that the Allied tankers have no serious fear of the big monsters. In reality, they often scooted from direct confrontations with them. CMBB's new vehicle morale will better simulate this.

That is good to hear. Will the vehicle morale be affected by the presence of (or the threat of presence of) enemy infantry ?

Incidentaly, will the CMBB be downward compatible with CMBO in any respect ? Are there any plans to make a CMBO Mark2 out of the CMBB game engine ? Is it even possible without months of recoding ? How deep are the vehicle specs involved in the arithmetics ?

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[Vanir Ausf B]

I am not Steve (surprise!), but as some of this has been commented on before...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

Incidentaly, will the CMBB be downward compatible with CMBO in any respect ?<hr></blockquote>

No.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Are there any plans to make a CMBO Mark2 out of the CMBB game engine ?<hr></blockquote>

No. Any CMBO remake would be with the all new CM engine coming up sometime after CMBB.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Is it even possible without months of recoding ?<hr></blockquote>

No.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> How deep are the vehicle specs involved in the arithmetics ?<hr></blockquote>

The heat of the meat is inversely proportional to the angle of the dangle.

[Scott B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Report from Inspector General of Panzertruppen (Sept. 44) regarding a Report from Tiger Commanders about IS-2 tanks:

"A time when there are 12.2cm tank guns and 5.7cm [my note... what the heck?] <hr></blockquote>

Why the note? That it's included in a report about IS-2s, or that they don't mention the 85mm on T-34/85 and SU-85 while they're at it? Seems pretty clear that the 57L73 could pose a threat to the Tiger I.

Scott

[Tero]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scott B:

Why the note? That it's included in a report about IS-2s, or that they don't mention the 85mm on T-34/85 and SU-85 while they're at it? Seems pretty clear that the 57L73 could pose a threat to the Tiger I.

Scott<hr></blockquote>

My first reaction was the same as Steves.

BTW: the 57mm ZIS-2 was actually 57L63.5

It would seem the appearance of the IS-2 and the 57mm AT gun were of more consequence and concerned the Germans the more than the 85mm tank mounted guns and the ZIS-3 76.2mm field gun.

http://history.vif2.ru/guns/atg_4.html

http://history.vif2.ru/guns/field_7.html

Comparing the ZIS-3 76.2mm field gun and the ZIS-2 57mm AT gun reveals the Tiger could take a hit from a ZIS-3 even at close range while a hit from a ZIS-2 at the same range was more dangerous.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[Ligur]

Steve is my hero.

Indeed, this still is a game, and take heed of this: Many combats have a timeframe of, say 25 or 30 turns (i.e. minutes). If I start playing like I was really inside every tank and would get whacked with a baseball bat if I die, I would never ever have the time to finish several scenarios. I often FEEL that if I start worrying about my crews like I SHOULD I would make almost no progress. There is not much time for efficient scouting, and several maps featuring tanks are too small for efficient tank maneuvers. My and my regular TCP/IP buddy just changed for bigger maps so we can actually move with the tanks instead of going head to head, knowing where the other foe is, even if our fights are small regarding points. We also usually have way more rounds then the regular scenarios to use.

Am I completely wrong, or am I just a very poor player? (note: Some tank scenarios indeed are suited with big maps, enabling long range fights etc).

Also, I tend to use "gamey" tactics to take out German tanks. Since my allied crews are robots with no fear of the bigger tanks, I can swarm them. This is a sound tactic, and AFAIK the allies were able to push the the Germans back because they had plenty more hardware, 1 vs 1 would have resulted in a Nazi world. Anyway, many have been the times when a lone Stuart or Sherman has rumbled past a cops of woods at high speed to wake up the interest of a Panther, and when the turret starts trailing towards the speeding AFV three Shermans crash in from the side and take it out. I wonder if such suicide crews were available in real life But what other option do I have? Sometimes I manage an ambush. Sometimes the time runs out.

Also, about the range and optics someone mentioned: I find that utilizing a tactic of ambushing allied (or German) vehicles from 1km from cover is quite rare, withing the game. Maps are too small, and the optics seem to be something else then what I've read about.

Maybe I've just played too small maps and had bad luck from long ranges? Anyone else feel like this?

[Roksovkiy]

Where in CMBO is the King Tiger's armor rated at 90%.

In the 1.12 patch its armor is rated at 100%.

The English rated the side armor of the King Tiger tested at the Aberdeen proving grounds as equivalent to 88mm US 240BHN plate, without including the slope. The armor with the 25 degree slope was rated at 98mm resistance. The rear hull's 80mm with the 30 degree slope was rated as equivalent to 100mm US 240BHN.

There was no mention of inferior quality armor for the side hull plates. Bazooka and PIAT tests failed to penetrate the rear and upper hull side plates.

[JasonC]

No Steve, it isn't due to using them funny. And if you think CM's HEAT penetration numbers are from formulas, not specific reports about each type of HEAT round, then you believe in some pretty screwy formulas. I take it as a more general comment, and only literally true about AP shot modeling (whether you were aware of the difference, or not).

Plot shell diameter vs. CM HEAT penetration against flat armor. Draw a line between the British 95mm and the US 105mm (it slopes down sharply and slightly to the right). Now draw a second line between the US 75mm on the M8HMC and the US 105mm. The lines cross at right angles.

Draw a line between the PIAT and the Schreck. It is nearly vertical. Now draw a line between the Zook and the US 105mm. It is nearly horizontal. There is no way these differences result from one formula and shell diameter.

"Oh, it isn't just diameter for HEAT rounds. MV comes in too, because it changes the fall in the impact angle (or whatever)." Problem - the two German 150mms, sIG and Hummel, have MVs 70% apart, and HEAT penetration numbers that are identical. Nope, it ain't MV.

"Well, maybe it is shell weight". The US 105mm HEAT weighs far more than a schreck round - by a factor of 4-5 - and has 20% more diameter. Its HEAT penetration is only 60% as high.

Of course this relationship may be entirely correct, but only because of detailed specific performances of the various HEAT warhead designs, determined empirically - not due to any formula.

But as soon as one moves to detailed empirical reports for each round, measuring differences from test to test (armor quality, etc) and nationality to nationality (in terms of how penetrations were counted, etc) immediately come into play.

Thus, CM gives the British 95mm a penetration of 125mm vs. flat armor, 108mm vs. 30 degrees. The number agrees closely with a British report of 110mm penetration vs. 30 degrees. However, the same, reported 120mm penetration vs. 20 degrees slope by a US 105mm HEAT round. Whereas CM gives the US 105mm only 102mm of penetration vs. flat armor, and 88mm vs. 30 degrees. In other words, the British give the US 105mm marginally higher performance, but comparable. But CM gives the British 95mm 23% more penetration than the US 105mm.

Interestingly enough, the German 105mm (howitzer, including StuH) is given 115mm penetration vs flat armor, 13% higher than the US 105mm, and 9% lower than the British 95mm. Are the two deviations from the German figure due to HEAT round design differences? Not if the British 105mm report is taken into account, since it gives comparable figures for 95mm or US 105mm.

But if the US 105mm and British 95mm were both rated like the German 105mm howitzer, then US 105mm HEAT would routinely penetrate Tiger Is from the front. The combat evidence supports the US figures and the CM rating for the US 105mm HEAT - a lower, 102mm and 88mm penetration at 0 and 30 degrees respectively. Which is enough that a Tiger I's front will resist successfully most of the time, while its flanks will not. Which is what gunners found in Sicily and Italy.

But if this is correct for the US 105mm, then the German 105mm is marginally overmodeled, and the British 95mm is grossly overmodeled. Right now the British 95mm will KO Tiger Is and Panther turrets from the front, consistently, while US 105mm will bounce. The bounce is correct, and the 95mm kills are not. The higher results reported in the British tests - which were also higher for the US 105mm of course - are not borne out by the combat reports of 105mm HEAT vs. 100m Tiger I fronts with slight slope.

They probably reflect ideal angles of impact, or perhaps different definitions of penetration or lower quality of plate hit. It is possible the 95mm had penetration as high as the German 105mm, and it was US 105mm in particular that was less effective in the field. But 10% higher than German 105mm HEAT is scarcely credible, when the British themselves claim no superiority over US 105mm HEAT.

Interestingly enough, the German 105mm HEAT for the recoilless rifle is rated only 1% higher than US 105mm HEAT. Why is German howitzer HEAT of the same caliber and nationality rated 12% more effective? Is it a real difference, or a variation between two tests?

The Bazooka may also be overmodeled. If you go back to the graph and trace lines between US 105 and US 75, the 60mm HEAT "prediction" would be a shade under 80mm vs. flat armor. If you instead trace a line between the German 105 and the PIAT, you get a shade over 80mm. If the round were rated 80mm vs flat armor, it would get hard indeed to kill Tigers with them, even Tiger Is and from the side - which apparently it was (see famous reports of "swatting at Tigers"). And killing King Tigers with them would be out of the question - an M-kill would be the best to hope for. Which apparently is what American soldiers found in the Bulge.

I am well aware that some US claims for the bazooka go as high as 100mm vs. flat armor, but that puts its penetration equal to 105mm HEAT, with 75% more shell diameter and 6-7 times the weight. It seems to me CM at present splits the difference between the likely true figure (around 80mm) and the maximum claim (around 100mm). It thus leaves the zook as effective as the US 75mm on the M8HMC, with 25% more diameter and several times the shell weight. The zook has better penetration numbers than the German 75mm recoilless.

The whole subject of HEAT penetrations is a difficult one, because it is strongly effected by impact angle and quality of plate, and the shots are often from unrifled rocket weapons, and lower velocity howitzers even when rifled, resulting in much great variation from round to round than with high velocity AP shot. This makes for greater measurement errors and variations in measurement practices, while also making particular round differences important. One is left needing to rely on empirical reports, that are themselves less reliable.

To me it is obvious that the cross check of reported combat performance has to help out, that being the case. And the combat performance reports of zooks vs. King Tigers, for instance (the immediate subject here) are uniformly negative, beyond achieving immobilization. Zooks are common enough that KTs encountered them wherever they went, so rariety issues do not enter.

I also find the claim that "it is all formulas", as though no guesswork is involved, a bit strange when one of the issues is armor quality. CM models the side armor of the KT as having 90% quality. Is this supposed to be based on a formula, say for the amount of non-ferrous metals in the alloy or something? Or is it a guesstimate, and more meant to apply to the front plates than to the sides, to begin with?

As for the aside about the Russian 57mm, others have mostly covered it sufficiently. It was about as capable at the D-5 model 85m for AT work, using standard ammo, and its APCR (the BR-571-P round) was considerably more effective.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[PJungnitsch]

Here's an article on tactical use of the Tiger II, from both the German and the Soviet perspectives:

Tiger II in action

The Germans appear very satisfied with the results of the King Tiger if there is enough infantry support to eliminate flank a/tk guns and infantry tank hunter teams.

The Soviets comment on the great care the Germans take to always attack frontally and avoid flanking fire, keeping the front plate towards the threat even if it is necessary to reverse to do it.

The overall impression from both sides is that the front of the KT is virtually impregnable, with attack from the flanks or close in assault being key to success or defeat.

[Redwolf]

How fast did 105mm howitzer or 95mm projectiles rotate (aka how much were the tubes rifled)?

That obviously makes a big difference for HEAT penetration. Maybe the British 95mm is unrifled? After all, it was a pure direct-fire support weapon, more comparable to the German infantry guns than the artillery pieces like the 105mm howitzer.

[jshandorf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC:

No Steve, it isn't due to using them funny. And if you think CM's HEAT penetration numbers are from formulas, not specific reports about each type of HEAT round, then you believe in some pretty screwy formulas. I take it as a more general comment, and only literally true about AP shot modeling (whether you were aware of the difference, or not).

[sNIP]

I also find the claim that "it is all formulas", as though no guesswork is involved, a bit strange when one of the issues is armor quality. CM models the side armor of the KT as having 90% quality. Is this supposed to be based on a formula, say for the amount of non-ferrous metals in the alloy or something? Or is it a guesstimate, and more meant to apply to the front plates than to the sides, to begin with?

As for the aside about the Russian 57mm, others have mostly covered it sufficiently. It was about as capable at the D-5 model 85m for AT work, using standard ammo, and its APCR (the BR-571-P round) was considerably more effective.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]<hr></blockquote>

Yeah... What Jason said. Uhhh-huh.

Jeff

[JasonC]

An interesting idea, redwolf. There are however a few problems with it. 1. The PIAT, which is not rotating, has essentially the same penetration as the same caliber but rotating US 75mm (on the M8HMC) - 4% higher, not 23% higher. 2. The low velocity and slowly rotating German 75mm leIG has the lowest HEAT penetration ratings in the game, presumably because its figures reflect an earlier HC round (HC-A perhaps). 3. The rapidly rotating 150mm Hummel round has the exact same penetration numbers as the slower 150mm sIG round. 4. The British 95mm has a higher MV than the US 105mm, not a lower one - though they are quite close. Both were tank mounted as fire support weapons, in the Sherman 105 just as in the British 95mm tanks. 5. The Brits themselves rate the 105mm HEAT equal to slightly better than their 95mm HEAT. They just rate both better. Do 105 rounds stop rotating if an Englishman pulls the trigger?

[JasonC]

If there is a patch that gives King Tigers 100% armor quality, I'd love to see it. My screen says v1.12 and the KTs all have 90% armor quality - even in July, 1944. The Tiger Is have 100% quality, but not the KTs.

[Redwolf]

Jason, my question about the rotation wasn't meant to explain all the discrepancies that we see now, certainly not for the shoulder-fired AT weapons.

It was more out of interest, how much rotation did WW2 forces give their artillery pieces, and how much for the close support guns?

In special, I am interestedt in the British 95mm, for which I find very few information in my books or the net. As I said, I could imagine that it is less rifled since it is close support only, compared to the 105mm in a Sherman which as I understand is exactly the same thing as the indirect-fire howitzer.

As for the recoiless rifles compared to the infantry guns, the infantry guns are all designed before HC was invented, the recoiless rifles afterwards. I could imagine that the RCL has a less rifled barrel to make its HC round more useful (assuming the finding that HC suffers from rotation was before the RCLs had been designed).

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>