Panzer76 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Ok, I thought it was a bit odd the penetration values for the axis 50 mm ATG and the Sherman gun so I checked with the pen values in CMBB, and it seems the pen in CMAK is higher. Am I seeing double here? If it is indeed higher, why is that? [spoiler warning added - MOON] [ November 19, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Moon ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarker Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Do a search - I think BFC stated ballistics and / or some gun capabilities were refined. I'm down loading the demo, so no searching for me! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Yup, thats the answer Basically we put a lot more research into armour penetration between CMBO, CMBB and CMAK and although CMBB is has damn fine calculations in it CMAK does take it another step further. Btw Panzer....might be best to put a SPOILER note at the top of this thread Dan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted November 20, 2003 Author Share Posted November 20, 2003 Originally posted by KwazyDog: Yup, thats the answer Basically we put a lot more research into armour penetration between CMBO, CMBB and CMAK and although CMBB is has damn fine calculations in it CMAK does take it another step further. Dan Is this gun specific changes or the general penetration algorithm change? It's the underlying model thats changes it's a very significant change and if so, is there any plans to update the CMBB to the new model? I dont think so, but I gotta ask 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Panzer I would say that it is either the underlying penetration model or data on the ammo that has changes. Unfortunately no, no plans to take this back at this point as it would require a lot of work and we want to go forward Dan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oskarm Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 May I ask what are the sources of new tables of penetration in CMAK? All tables I ever seen were rather similar to this from CMBO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 SCENARIO SPOILER . . . . . . . . . . I was surprised that in one battle, two of my Shermans stuffed 75mmAP rounds into a StuH from just over 100m, only to achieve a 'partial penetration'. In the old days of CM:BB and CM:BO that sort of ranged attack would be enough to put a round in the front and out the back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Huh, the 75mm Sherman gun has a max penetration of 104mm in 1943. I am afraid that doesn't mix well with existing firing data against 80mm Tiger sides and turret rears. Only the new ammo introduced in October 44 should be able to penetrate the Tiger's sides, at least that is what forum wisdom had to offer so far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 The numbers given are vs. a typical opponent aren't they? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Well, the Tiger has homogenous armor, so that 104mm number will apply. If it was face-hardened it would be subject to further messing with the penetration, but it isn't. [ November 21, 2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 CMAK has Shermans firing 75mm uncapped solid AP rounds which really penetrate homogeneous armor like crazy, but are much less effective than APCBC against face-hardened plates. But Sherman 75mm ammo will switch from AP to APCBC as time goes on. CMBO only allowed Shermans 75mm APCBC and the penetration figures did not consider the large HE burster, which dropped the penetration by about 10%. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 And whats with the early "bad" ammo quality from the sherms? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted November 25, 2003 Author Share Posted November 25, 2003 Originally posted by oskarm: May I ask what are the sources of new tables of penetration in CMAK? All tables I ever seen were rather similar to this from CMBO. Compare the same guns in CMAK and CMBB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrek Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by oskarm: May I ask what are the sources of new tables of penetration in CMAK? All tables I ever seen were rather similar to this from CMBO. Compare the same guns in CMAK and CMBB </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little_Black_Devil Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Any chance that the CMBB penetration values are based off of Soviet ammunition used in the American 75mm L/38 gun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Ok, so the Sherman 75mm is now capable of destroying Tigers from the side (homogenous armor) before they switch to APBC. I was under the impression that 75mm Shermans and Cromwells could not penetrate Tiger backs and sides during the Summer of 1944, only later when they got APBC. But the data here implies the opposite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little_Black_Devil Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Is ALL of the Tiger RHA? No FHA at all? Wow...I didn't know that. :/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 You forgot the 15% untermenschen slimy red horde of mongol commies penalty in CMBB. If you take that into account it all makes sense. You will find much the same reasoning in lots of other places in CMBB numbers, if you pry in the slightest and your mind isn't a loop to loop reel of Signal magazine reruns... 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.