JoMac Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Just purchased CMAK and noticed that the Allies have many of their gun penatrations increased that over CMBO, why is that. I like CMBO penatrations better and still think they are alittle more accurate. Joe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by JoMc67: Just purchased CMAK and noticed that the Allies have many of their gun penatrations increased that over CMBO, why is that. I like CMBO penatrations better and still think they are alittle more accurate. Joe CMAK is more accurate in quite a few ways, after going through the stats and the results. CMBO penetration for 75mm APCBC fired by Sherman is higher than it should be against homogeneous armor (Tiger, for instance), and lower than it should be against face-hardened armor (PzKpfw IVH and StuG IIIG fronts, for instance). CMAK takes into account the different penetration stats for rounds against face-hardened and homogeneous armor, which makes a BIG difference in many cases. Sherman 75mm APCBC penetrates about 81mm homogeneous armor at 500 meters and 0 degrees, but about 95mm of face-hardened armor at the same range and angle. The armor piercing cap on Sherman 75mm APCBC was designed especially for face-hardened armor destruction (the cap protects the projectile nose), but the armor piercing cap also decreases homogeneous penetration by absorbing more energy in the cap break-up than it contributes to armor defeat. CMBO also takes into account projectile size and HE burster after it gets into a tank, so 37mm APCBC which is solid shot does less damage after penetrating a Panther than 75mm APCBC which has a nice fat HE burster designed to explode after penetration. There are pictures of Valentine tanks that took MANY 50mm hits and penetrations and kept on fighting. How many 122mm hits could the same tank take? Lorrin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted July 19, 2004 Author Share Posted July 19, 2004 Rexford, Thanx for the info. I figured that is what CMAK was trying to accomplish when i was reading all the previous posts regarding the above you mentioned. For some reason i always thought the Tiger 1 had face hardened Armour (Front Turret and Hull) where the surface of the Homo Armour used a heat treated process to give it that face hardened affect. As far as i know most of the German vehicles used Homo and spaced armour not face hardened. Does Combat Mission also take into account that some allied models used Cast-Armour in place of Homo. Its lighter then Homo but alittle more brittle against AP rounds. I think there was atleast one Sherman M4, T-34, and KV1 variant that used the Cast Armour, but not sure of the production percentage. Ofcourse i could be wrong with some of the above, but that was back in the day when i played HO and Micro Armour table top miniature rules where Face-Hardened Armour was alittle better then Homo and Cast was alittle less affective then Homo. [ July 19, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: JoMc67 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 What about the higher Axis values, in particular for the 75mm L43-48 and 75mm L70? Any new hints where BFC got the new higher numbers? Maybe a different base of comparision because of target armor in the two games (maybe one game displaying against-FH values, the other one against-homogenous values?). 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.