Why T-34/85 vs Panther better w/o APCR???

[Andrew H.]

I think Elmar's point about the AI wanting to conserve rare tungsten rounds is key here - given the very slight difference in lethality b/t tungsten and conventional shot at this range, the AI probably decides to accept the marginally worse (but still really good) penetration value so that it will have W rounds left over for when they might really make a difference.

[ww2steel]

Hi,

Andrew- that's actually the opposite of what's happening though. At short range if they have the tungsten ammo they are firing it even though it (for whatever reason- which was my original question) does worse than AP. They are wasting APCR when the plentiful AP does better.

Mike

[Other Means]

Ignore Tagwin, I think he's a bit...umm.

Stupid.

I'm interested in the research - well done for doing it. You could try uploading your results here:

http://cmwiki.jemian.com/index.php/Main_Page

[MikeyD]

I have a vague memory about a debate about Russian capped projectiles and face-hardened armor versus homogeous. That may be a direction to look.

I'm also reminded of problems that U.S. APCR rounds had in CMBO. At certain ranges/angles a 'shatter gap' rears its ugly head, where the stress on the projectile breaks it up before it can penetrate. They'd perform better at shorter ranges and perform better at longer ranges. At certain distances you'd see a lot of 'Shell broke up".

Also,U.S. tungsten rounds were most often used at shorter ranges due to the rapid drop-off in velocity. 17 pdr tungsten sabot rounds were restricted to short range mostly because the dispersion pattern was so awful! :eek:

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

[snips]

I'm also reminded of problems that U.S. APCR rounds had in CMBO. At certain ranges/angles a 'shatter gap' rears its ugly head,

I think you are confusing APCBC with APCR. Some US 76mm APCBC suffered shatter problems because of the relative softness of its nose. I do not believe it was ever a problem with APCR (HVAP in US service), partly because tungsten carbide is just too hard.

AIUI the mechanism that causes projectile shatter failure is adiabatic shear-stress banding. Because of the way tungsten carbide fails, this causes projectile erosion at high impact velocities, but not failure of the whole projectile. Moreover, projectile erosion only occurs at impact velocities higher than those generally achieved by WW2 weapons.

All the best,

John.

[ww2steel]

Mr. Salt is reading my mind. That's what I was working on last night and this morning. The Sherman's 76mm has a huge shatter gap with the APCBC on the '43 to '44 ammo (the Panther takes 10% fewer casualties at 300m than at 100m or 500m). This morning I am going to test the 1945 ammo to see if it does better.

The Soviets used 76mm ammo made 'in house' right? Not just US imports? If so, is the Soviet ammo the one reflected in the game?

As to the topic that I started on this thread I have determined that simply the AI chooses the wrong ammo. It selects the higher penetrateion of the APCR when the more destructive normal AP actually does better.

Mike

[ww2steel]

Since the Sherman is kind of off topic I started a new thread HERE.

Thanks,

Mike

[ww2steel]

I have discoved a more extreme case of the AI improperly firing APCR with a Panther / T-44 pairing. It was pretty obvious on this one. Here's the new thread:

APCR used wrong...

Mike