Andrew H. Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ww2steel Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 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: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ww2steel Posted July 2, 2006 Author Share Posted July 2, 2006 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ww2steel Posted July 2, 2006 Author Share Posted July 2, 2006 Since the Sherman is kind of off topic I started a new thread HERE. Thanks, Mike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ww2steel Posted July 3, 2006 Author Share Posted July 3, 2006 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.