WineCape Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 This has been mentioned before on the forum: There is an improvement in the penetration capabilities of the Sherman 75mm gun (et al) in CMAK compared to CMBB. For example, distance penetration comparison is as follows: APCBC shot: 100m CMBB: @ 0º = 90mm, @ 30º = 72mm, @ 60º = 40mm CMAK: @ 0º = 104mm, @ 30º = 82mm, @ 60º = 40mm APCBC shot: 500m CMBB: @ 0º = 83mm, @ 30º = 66mm, @ 60º = 38mm CMAK: @ 0º = 96mm, @ 30º = 76mm, @ 60º = 38mm APCBC shot: 1000m CMBB: @ 0º = 75mm, @ 30º = 60mm, @ 60º = 35mm CMAK: @ 0º = 87mm, @ 30º = 69mm, @ 60º = 35mm Has BFC discovered better research, or has Lorrin Bird’s formulae shed some new light since CMBB in the murky field of ballistics? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keke Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 Maybe it's the patriotic bonus... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 or maybe americans and brits, being better billiards players than russians, know how to put a bit of "english" on the spin. lol.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 This holds true for a number of guns, like the 50 mm ATG (german). AFAIK BFC said this was due to ammo quality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 As soon as you realize the Russians have been laboring under a 15% "untermenschen factor" all along, you will appreciate CMBB in a new light. The same is true of their domestic 45mm, 76mm, and 85mm penetration ratings. Thus the magical uberStuG, first ever spotted (or even alleged, in all previous history) when CMBB came out... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 ....but if the Russian penetrations stats are 15% "unter" in CMBB, we would need a CMBB patch fixing this to appreciate CMBB in a new light, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 I think there will be another CMBB patch. However, I think it will focus on minor BUG items like fortifications counting as casualties. I don't think they will port some of the real deal over (turn and bog rates, new FOW features), and in the case of the T-34 penetration and IS-2 front BFC never made a statement on it (we only get the Sherman statement by accident because it is in the new game). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Originally posted by redwolf: I think there will be another CMBB patch. I dont think so, BFC has said they are finished with BB and will not release more patches for it. This was said after CMAK was released. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Originally posted by Panzer76: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf: I think there will be another CMBB patch. I dont think so, BFC has said they are finished with BB and will not release more patches for it. This was said after CMAK was released. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Dont forget the "now" "ueber"-76,2mm over 220mm with tungsten/wolfram I wonder, why they started to build Pershings. 6 pounders are abel to kill TigersI out to 1000 meters... The Bar with the same firepower under 40 meters like the real MP`s.... I hade a good feeling with cmbo, then with cmbb...but now.. Same with quad .50 cal. if i shoot with at infs. i can expect, that the grunts are imediatly dead. If i try this with a quad flak 20mm with a higher fire rate and he bursters...this will took 1-2 rounds or more. Five years later and all guns are able to knock out ISIII. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keke Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Yep, good ole US patriotism makes all of their guns much more effective, in games especially... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Want to change something? Dig up some proof. We know JasonC is full of opinions, but has failed everytime to put some proof on the table, except his own conclusions and AARs that doesnt say anything definitive. I suspect not much has changed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Originally posted by K_Tiger: Same with quad .50 cal. if i shoot with at infs. i can expect, that the grunts are imediatly dead. If i try this with a quad flak 20mm with a higher fire rate and he bursters...this will took 1-2 rounds or more. Interesting observations, and you may be right about the relative firepower of the quad mount M2 vs. quad mount 20mm being unrealistic, but I think you are incorrect about the relative rates of fire. AFAIK, the most common German Quad 20mm setups used the the FlaK 38, which had a cyclic ROF of 420 rnds./min, for a cyclic of 1680 rnds./min. in a quad mount. The Ground version of the M2HB carried by infantry had a cyclic ROF of 450-550 rnds/min., a bit higher than the FlaK 38. However, I wonder if the MGMC 17 used the aircraft version of the M2, which had the same basic mechanics, but a cyclic ROF of 750 rnds/min. I do know that the US Navy used the higer ROF M2 on ship and harbor stationary AA mounts, so it definitely saw action on ground AA mounts. It would certainly make sense to use the higher ROF version on the Quad .50 since recoil wouldn't be a big issue. I don't know for sure if this was the case, though. Of course all this changes if the German Quad mounts used the 151/20, which had a cyclic of over 700 rnds./min., but I don't think this weapon was very common in ground mounts, being mostly used for Aircraft mountings. I could be wrong about this, though. Cheers, YD [ January 18, 2004, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Comment re weapon lethality: I suspect that on that fine day sometime in the future when we fire up "CM2: Electric Boogaloo" on our machines we will all be a little surprised at how dead all of our stupidly-exposed troops become, and how quickly. Currently we are missing true shrapnel and frag effects from all weapon types, TACAI fine tuned "leading" of moving troops, detailed cover-penetration from high-caliber "smallarms", and the like. I'd say we should start a pool to see which one of the players who cried about excessively-crawling squads in the BB engine changes will be the first to whine about his troops not crawling enough in CM2, but I'm afraid I might just turn out to be that guy. All in all I anticipate a much deadlier battlefield with the next engine. The lethality abstractions we get with this one are mainly okay with me. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogust Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 What really surprised me regarding armour penetration is the Stuart, it can now penetrate more than 80mm armour at short ranges (88mm@0 at 100 meters) which means that it is capable of knocking out StuGs from the front and Tigers from the side. In CMBO the Stuart was able to penetrate 65-68mm@0 at 100 meters, so it's quite a big improvement penetration wise. The behind armour effect should be smaller though, but they're still very dangerous to medium tanks from the front due to the high ROF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Cogust, you really need to compare CMBB and CMAK. There was a massive change in armour penetration values between CMBO and CMBB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Plus the 37mm gun on the Stuart fires AP shot, which, while it has better armour penetration performance, has lousy behind armour effect. 6 pounders are abel to kill TigersI out to 1000 meters... With APDS, this is expected, isn't it. What isn't modelled (or is it?) is that you can't hit a thing (even, perhaps, the ground) at that range with APDS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Now that we're on the subject of Stuarts; Where the 37 mm on that thing really that deadly? I played one of the scenarios of Boots and Tracks TCP/IP pack the other day (A taste of Honey or somesuch) and completely massacred various Pz III and IV with my Stuarts. Not being that particular kind of Grog I don't know much about the Stuart/Honey but it does seem a little too lethal... Comments, anyone? Derfel 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 What version III and IV? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: Plus the 37mm gun on the Stuart fires AP shot, which, while it has better armour penetration performance, has lousy behind armour effect. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 6 pounders are abel to kill TigersI out to 1000 meters... With APDS, this is expected, isn't it. What isn't modelled (or is it?) is that you can't hit a thing (even, perhaps, the ground) at that range with APDS. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 WARNING! IF YOU'RE GOING TO PLAY BOOTS AND TRACKS TCP/IP PCK. SPOILERS BELOW! Andreas: From memory; Pz IV E or posssibly F (short 75mm in any case) Pz III H I think... might have been others too.. I remember the "H" because it had a "Crack" crew. -Derfel ADDENDUM: Turns out there were Pz III "G" and "E" versions too. [ January 19, 2004, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Derfel ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Originally posted by K_Tiger: No it isnt, its APCBC solid shot. "The lousy behind armor effect" doesnt matter...the fast rate of fire will do the trick...when the crew starts to get pinned, the game will be over. The long barrelled (L50) 6pdr has only just got 100mm penetration at 1000yds, whicle won't hurt the front of a Tiger 1 From the side though, it's a different matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 The long barrelled (L50) 6pdr has only just got 100mm penetration at 1000yds, whicle won't hurt the front of a Tiger 1 From the side though, it's a different matter. If we stay correct, its 101mm so the 6pdr armed tank hase to move some 20m further I found too the gamey`st vehicel of all CM-Games: Named the Daimler-Little John P-Stats: 116/97/77 Movement: 50mph Turret: verry fast Forget the bazooka-boys loaded Jeeps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogust Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Andreas, the armour piercing for the Stuart in CMBB is even better (90mm at 100 meters), way better than the T-34 at short up to medium ranges. The Stuart gun has a calibre of 37mm and a MV of 880 m/s and the only 37mm with a similar penetration is the Pak36 using Tungsten (MV 1020 m/s and penetration between 87mm (CMAK) and 90mm (CMBB)). This sounds a bit strange to me as the difference in MV is very high and the penetration about the same, I'm no ballistic grog though so CMBB/AK could be perfectly okay regardless of what I think. It is a strange feeling that the Stuart outguns a T-34 though... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Originally posted by WineCape: This has been mentioned before on the forum: There is an improvement in the penetration capabilities of the Sherman 75mm gun (et al) in CMAK compared to CMBB. For example, distance penetration comparison is as follows: APCBC shot: 100m CMBB: @ 0º = 90mm, @ 30º = 72mm, @ 60º = 40mm CMAK: @ 0º = 104mm, @ 30º = 82mm, @ 60º = 40mm APCBC shot: 500m CMBB: @ 0º = 83mm, @ 30º = 66mm, @ 60º = 38mm CMAK: @ 0º = 96mm, @ 30º = 76mm, @ 60º = 38mm APCBC shot: 1000m CMBB: @ 0º = 75mm, @ 30º = 60mm, @ 60º = 35mm CMAK: @ 0º = 87mm, @ 30º = 69mm, @ 60º = 35mm Has BFC discovered better research, or has Lorrin Bird?s formulae shed some new light since CMBB in the murky field of ballistics? Since the majority of the panzers met in North Africa carried face-hardened armor, CMAK presents face-hardened penetration stats for many Allied weapons while CMBB showed the homogeneous armor figures (although many panzers in Russia also used face-hardened armor, such as PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV, early Panther D and A, StuG III, etc.). 75mm APCBC fired by Shermans penetrates much more face-hardened armor at 100m than homogeneous because: 1. armor piercing cap assists in defeat of face-hardened armor by protecting projectile nose from shatter 2. armor-piercing cap absorbs energy against homogeneous armor and doesn't do much towards defeating that type of plate Face-hardened armor on panzers typically has a thin surface layer that is very hard, 450 to 600 Brinell Hardness. The armor defeats hits by breaking up the nose of the round, and if enough of the ammo survives and gets through the face-hardened layer the plate is gone-so. Armor piercing caps help to keep the nose intact, which is bad for face-hard armor. Homogeneous armor (240 to 300 Brinell Hardness is typical, occasionally up to 340 Brinell as on Tiger side) is defeated when a round strikes and has enough energy to push the relatively soft armor out of the way. Armor piercing caps take away from homogeneous penetration. U.S. 75mm M72 uncapped solid shot AP penetrates much more homogeneous armor than 75mm APCBC because it doesn't have an armor piercing cap, and doesn't have an HE burster cavity which weakens the APCBC rounds. Against face-hardened armor, 75mm APCBC is better than 75mm AP. American stats for U.S. 37mm AP and APCBC ammo show: 37mm APCBC fired at 2900 fps 78mm homogeneous at 100m 73mm face-hardened at 100m 37mm AP fired at 2900 fps 89mm homogeneous at 100m 65mm face-hardened at 100m American 75mm AP and APCBC: 75mm APCBC fired at 2030 fps 88mm homogeneous at 100m 102mm face-hardened at 100m 75mm AP fired at 2030 fps 109mm homogeneous at 100m 91mm face-hardened at 100m Since 75mm AP does not have a ballistic windscreen but has a somewhat blunt nose shape, APCBC rounds lose velocity slower than AP. U.S. 75mm AP also suffered from a tendency to shatter and had inconsistent powder charges which lead to accuracy problems. British used German 75mm APC rounds, Americans eventually bored HE burster cavities in 75mm AP rounds and re-used them as APCBC. 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.