Are some wheeled AC impervious to MG fire?

[Dittohead]

From my testing it seems that some wheeled armored cars can neither be knocked out or even immobilized by concentrated MG fire. Range for testing was 50-80m.

My first test pitted a humbar, M-8, Diamler and M-20 vs 18 elite HMG-42. The crew quickley abandoned the M-20. But all other AC's just laughed off the MG fire. Then after 10 seconds or so all MG's stop firing since they assume they can't penetrate the armor.

On shadowsfolly they list the side armor of the M-8 at 9mm where CM has 10mm?

Then second test pitted a Puma, 234/1 and 234/3 vs 6-M1919 and 6-M1917. The M1919's got a kill vs the 234/3 and Puma. Probably from the 8mm @30 deg side armor, and would continue shooting sproadically at the 234/1.

It would seem that weak point penetrations, lucky shots, critical hits, tires shot to pieces, exposed drive train or steering linkage damage, ricochets through drivers vision slots, gun damage, shots thru engine doors are virtually impossible to achieve against certain AC's with MG fire.

With the Allies fairing much better than the Germans. This appears to be unrealistic. These uber cars must be stopped.

Just wondering if anybody else has noticed the same thing or maybe I need to do more testing. Thanks and

BTS please fix or do somefink.

Tony

[This message has been edited by Dittohead (edited 01-09-2001).]

[Doug Beman]

I'm pretty sure that the vulnerability or not of armored cars vs machine gun fire is based on historical data, armor values, etc. Were your MGs always firing head on, or were the ACs dancing about and maybe presenting side shots?

If you can prove that some-and-such armored car was frequently killed by fire from machine guns, post it here.

DjB

[Juardis]

Thanks for testing and posting DH. I asked a similar question a week or so ago. Try a vickers in your test. I was uncertain whether an M1919 could kill an APC, but you proved it possible. I'm not sure a Vickers can though (I've never seen a vickers damage an APC). Also, the HMG42 should be able to and I was always under that impression, but in all my playing since June I have yet to see a HMG42 take out an APC. You verified that it's rare.

However, when firing any type of projectile at any wheeled vehicle, it seems a tire shot can and will at least immobilize it. I've never seen that happen although it should happen a lot what with all that lead in the air.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Dittohead]

Oops forgot about the British.

I need to locate other sources to verify the thickness of the side and rear armour on the M-8. 3/8" = 9mm So the 10mm armor may be incorrect. Also need to lookup the penetration of the various MG's.

[jgdpzr]

I may be somewhat off base here (not an unusual thing), but it is my understanding that even WWII era ACs had self-sealing tires that could a resist a great deal of small arms fire. Perhaps a concentrated burst of MG42 might shred one, but I believe the tires were fully capable of withstanding several shots without deflating.

Further, I don't think that medium or light MGs were expected to perform well against ACs. The M2, of course, is a completely different story. I don't have a clue of what the penetration tables say, but IIRC, MG crews in WWII preferred to let the bigger guns take care of even lightly armed vehicles such as ACs or HTs. I haven't noticed anything glaringly ahistorical about their effectiveness, but I certainly claim no expertise. Given BTS' history, I'd bet the game doesn't stray too far from the penetration tables.

[Jarmo]

It's kind of funny, that not too long ago there was a thread complaining

how the MG42 kills halftracks way too easily.

Same game, different observer.

[Olle Petersson]

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

It would seem that weak point penetrations, ..., shots thru engine doors are virtually impossible to achieve against certain AC's with MG fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True, but these hits should also be (somewhat)effective against heavier armour as well.

I've posted before that all armour is vulnerable to MG fire (in real world, not CM), since the repeated beating weakens the material. It's like a chisel working it's way through.

The Norwegians used MMGs as their primary AT weapon, next to IF arty, since they had no ATGs. Managed to knock out a couple of PzKw I/II, but lost more machine gunners in the process.

Given enough time and ammo it would probably be quite easy to even penetrate the front armour of the latest M1A2 version...

CM doesn't take weakening of armour into any account though, even if it really could make a difference for originally weak armour.

Cheers

Olle

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

Srategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight...

[Dittohead]

Well with the M-8 there a couple issues that need to be resolved. Have been looking but no additional info so far.

1. Is the armor 9mm or 10mm. If the armor is 9mm can the 7.92mm penetrate at under 100m.

2. The Puma and /3 have 8mm @30 deg = 9.2mm

and was penetrated by the .30 cal at around 80m. The 234/1 was not, has 8mm @35 deg = 9.7mm. So MG-42 should go through 9mm.

As I brought up in another thread it would be nice for Tanks or AT guns to fire HE at AC instead of AP. This way even on near misses the HE round has a good chance to disable the AC, esp the fast moving ones.

[Wilhammer]

From reading the Standard Ordnance Catalog of 1944, the tires on the M-8/M-20 are called "12 ply Combat Tires". Unfortunately, I cannot find anymore information than that.

So, just what is a 12 ply Combat tire?

Same catalog reports armor sides and rear to be 3/8 in thick, which translates to 9.525 mm. This does not include the fenders or the storage bins that cover the sides, so 10 mm sounds right.

Interestingly, the M-20 has ammo storage for 10 2.36 inch rockets and provisions for a M9A1 rocket launcher, which I assume means it is racked and not pintle mounted. If true, then I assume its combat usage would be dismounted crewman or possibly from the open ring (which I think would be risky).

Both have stowage areas for anti-tank mines, but it is outside the scope of CM for mine laying.

BTW, a quick breeze through of the 38th Recon AARs does not uncover any reports of A/Cs being damaged by blown or punctured tires.

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 01-16-2001).]

[Juardis]

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

BTW, a quick breeze through of the 38th Recon AARs does not uncover any reports of A/Cs being damaged by blown or punctured tires.

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 01-16-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I learn something new every day. Thanks for posting this.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Dittohead]

Seems like the 7.92mm can penetrate the M-8 side and rear armor found this(not sure of the bullet type)

WO 190/706, German Army infantry weapons.

This document is dated 1938. Range in units stated, penetration in mm.

Weapon Angle Range Penetration

7.92mm s.m.k bullet 90º 400m 8.5

90º 100m 10

Chamberlain, Doyle & Jentz, 1978

Appendix I, "German Tank Armament ", in: "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two", first edition, Peter Chamberlain, Hilary L. Doyle & Thomas L. Jentz, A&AP 1978, page 245.

"Penetration of Homogenous Armour Plate at 30º from Vertical", ranges in metres.

Weapon Ammunition 100m 500m

7.92mm MGs Patr SmK 8mm 3mm

From http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt5.htm

Web site has an excellent summary of penetration data from all sources.

Penetration data is downloaded as a rtf

document.

[This message has been edited by Dittohead (edited 01-16-2001).]

[Juardis]

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

BTW, a quick breeze through of the 38th Recon AARs does not uncover any reports of A/Cs being damaged by blown or punctured tires.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just finished reading an article in WWII magazine about the 222nd US infantry division (Rainbow Division) and their defense of Ohlungen forest near Schwieghausen in Jan 45. The article talked about an M8 driving up a road and killing Germans while at the same time taking small arms fire from the Germans. After awhile, they either abandoned it or drove it back to friendly territory, I'm not sure which. But here's the passage.

"By now the M8 was out of ammunition and one of its tires was flat. Woelfer and his little group found that the woods where the 2nd platoon had veen were now full of Germans and that there was no hope of getting through to Company E...Just before midnight, they headed back toward Neubourg to organize a detachment to reinforce the flank they had found so badly battered."

While it did not specifically say that small arms fire flattened the tire, it did imply it since the M8 was on a road the whole time.

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

Jeff Abbott