Consequences of "Front Upper Hull Penetration"?

[OGSF]

So the mighty Pkw III scores a "Front Upper Hull Penetration" on an M3 Medium tank with it's 5cm gun. I would expect the consequences to involve a lump of hot tungsten or steel ricocheting about inside the M3 Medium tank, breaking equipment and chewing up some or all of the crew. Apparently this is not enough to discourage the stalwart crew from continuing to fire well aimed shots at the hull down protaganist(s), knocking them out and generally behaving like "Highlander III".

Is a "hull penetration" not always a hull penetration? Have the damage tables altered in CM:AK?

How can M3 tanks, and the M3 75mm Half Track for that matter, take one or more "hull penetrations" without affecting the units ability to continue fighting?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Redwolf]

Yes, it has been changed drastically from CMBO.

The old behaviour was clearly not right and would have lead to a realism mess with AT rifles in CMBB (and it was bad enough with AA guns in CMBO).

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

(and it was bad enough with AA guns in CMBO).

Right. Once in BO I had a Sherman taken out early in a game by a 37mm AA. Disgusting.

Michael

[OGSF]

So are we saying that a penetration is not a penetration? A lump of hot metal ricocheting around inside a tin box would be pretty devastating for any soft tissue contents, yes?

Either the slug penetrates the armour or it doesn't. Once inside, a 1.5" slug or a 3" slug would both interfere with the crews ability to function - or so I would have thought.

What am I missing here?

[Seanachai]

Well, it would annoy the bonnie wee spaniel...

But I imagine that not everything ricochets around like a ping-pong ball. Wouldn't a lot of high velocity lumps of metal simply come in, losing most of their impetus, hit the other side, lose their remaining kinetic energy and thud down under foot, or such?

And even if it makes it through the hull or turret armour, does that mean it's loose in the crew compartment like Tinkerbell on amphetamines? Couldn't it penetrate without achieving anything more? (rather like Grog Emrys on a date?)

[Bastables]

Arghhhhh OGSF

Remember your childhood?

Remember the good times with CMBO?

Remember the hue and cry over the immediate lethality over armour penetrations caused by the USA 50cal?

Then you'll also remember that this was fixed to insure that not any old little bits of metal that just make it through armour can actually cause any appreciable damage. With CMBB/AK this was extended to other larger projectiles, essentially now not all penetrations have the same behind armour effect of a 12.2cm shell. Logically a sub-calibre "shot" round from a 5cm gun is not going to be as likely to be as catastrophic as an 8,8cm shell with a HE charge.

[OGSF]

But what about the Stukas??!! How can I do a proper Blitzkreig without any Stukas?????

Even the ppixeltruppen know something is up.... a PkwIII manages to take out a Sherman with a "side upper hull penetration" and a little American vioce from a nearby pixeltruppen says (in hushed tones of awe).."Did you see that?"

But thank you for your explaination cos I really did not understand why, after having achieved penetration, size still mattered.

[scene inside M3 Medium after penetration by 50mm AT round]:

"What's the matter with you, Thompson?"

"Sarge, a 50mm AT round just came through the upper hull and tore my arm off!"

"Stop being a snivelling Outerboarder and keep firing! It's not as if it was a 75mm round is it?!"

I guess only players with small caliber AT ammo reckon size doesn't matter.

[Eric Alkema]

I just achieved five (count 'em five, in rapid succession) penetrations on a KV something with the above mentioned weapon. I feel your pain. Of course the panzer crew doesn't, they blew up.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by OGSF:

But what about the Stukas??!! How can I do a proper Blitzkreig without any Stukas?????

Even the ppixeltruppen know something is up.... a PkwIII manages to take out a Sherman with a "side upper hull penetration" and a little American vioce from a nearby pixeltruppen says (in hushed tones of awe).."Did you see that?"

But thank you for your explaination cos I really did not understand why, after having achieved penetration, size still mattered.

[scene inside M3 Medium after penetration by 50mm AT round]:

"What's the matter with you, Thompson?"

"Sarge, a 50mm AT round just came through the upper hull and tore my arm off!"

"Stop being a snivelling Outerboarder and keep firing! It's not as if it was a 75mm round is it?!"

I guess only players with small caliber AT ammo reckon size doesn't matter.

ROTFL

[Mace]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

ROTFL

I hope you're laughing at him, and not with him.

Mace

[BadgerDog]

This is just my opinion, but I think there's some serious damage modeling flaws as it relates to Grant M3 tanks. They remind me of the early KV1's in CMBB and are virtually indestructible even at 10-20 meters. It's an unfortunate anomaly which I hope is addressed in a future patch as it contributes to unbalanced game play.

I have a movie file from a PBEM match (large 2 Mb) that I'd be happy to send anyone who emails a request. Bottom line... at 16-70 meters with multiple side lower hull penetrations at full 90 degree broadside (and a miss... how does a tank master weapon miss at 16 meters?) ... three PZIII's (50mm/L42) didn't even appear to dent three Grants, which calmly traversed there turrets and blew away the PZIII's.

It sure creates strange game play balance. Kind of reminds me of those Russian KV1's in CMBB. Given that range and side armour thickness exposed on the M3's, I would have thought they'd have been toast..... play the movie for yourself and check the penetration tables and distances... let me know what do you think.

Regards,

Badger

badger@tacticalgamer.com

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

This is just my opinion, but I think there's some serious damage modeling flaws as it relates to Grant M3 tanks. They remind me of the early KV1's in CMBB and are virtually indestructible even at 10-20 meters. It's an unfortunate anomaly which I hope is addressed in a future patch as it contributes to unbalanced game play.

The two times I played Frühlingswind, my M3s died quite readily once the Germans got within 300 meters or so. Sometimes my Shermans did too.

Michael

[Runyan99]

I'm with OGSF. I don't think tank crews should be able to ignore the effects of penetrating hits. At least not quite as often as they currently do in CM.

Please explain to me exactly how a round can fully penetrate and not cause a havoc inside the tank.

I have taken a look at the inside of some tanks. Once you pack five guys or so into the cramped compartment, it is hard to imagine where a round might enter the tank and not harm the crew.

Even if a round (and the armor spall) does fail to damage interior components or injure the crew, I think this would immediately be a source of some concern and discomfort to the crew. I think crews of penetrated tanks should tend to be Panicked and Shocked.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Please explain to me exactly how a round can fully penetrate and not cause a havoc inside the tank.

It may have lost so much energy and mass penetrating that it just barely pops through. That said, you may be right about this being underplayed somewhat in the current build of the game. I think they got the probability of riccochets about right though.

Michael

[Code13]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

Please explain to me exactly how a round can fully penetrate and not cause a havoc inside the tank.

There is always the question of overpenetration which was a major problem early on in the war.

Basically high velocity rounds would penetrate one side of the target, go straight through and out the other side.

Cant say where I saw it but there is a documented case of one round penetrating two tanks, first one was fine but the second one goe knocked out because the round had lost enough velocity to be stopped by the engine in the second.

The round can happily penetrate, problem is it doesnt realise it has hit anything and so just keeps going and out the other side.

[Caesar]

I don't believe that the shots going right through the tank was the cause of the odd results in the case that BadgerDog was mentioning. I am his opponent in this battle and some of the results were pretty weird. One of my M3s was penetrated at 30 - 50m side on by a 50mm L42. The shot killed a crew member. This happened at about the 25 second mark. The tank recovered in time to kill its assailant.

In theory I suppose, the shell could possibly make its way through two layers of 38mm armour if at 0 degrees but there is a heck of a space between those layers and I would expect that the HE charge would have plenty of time to detonate. In the case of such perfect shooting situations where the armour is massively overpenetrated, shouldn't the burster go off inside the tank. I can see no way of the tank crew surviving this.

My M3s were penetrated 6 times (from 7 shots, one shot broke up) at under 70m from the side by the 50mm L42. Only one shot KO'd an M3, one shot killed a crew member, the rest did no damage. These were point blank hits. The results seem a little off. At this range, with this amount of over penetration I would expect the results to usually be catastrophic not occasionally.

[Michael Emrys]

This was also a problem with the APHE shells of the larger naval guns when firing on destroyers. The DDs didn't have any armor, so often the shells would pass right through without meeting enough resistance to trigger the fuses. They'd have big holes punched through them, but that was better than being blown to smithereens.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Caesar:

My M3s were penetrated 6 times (from 7 shots, one shot broke up) at under 70m from the side by the 50mm L42. Only one shot KO'd an M3, one shot killed a crew member, the rest did no damage. These were point blank hits. The results seem a little off. At this range, with this amount of over penetration I would expect the results to usually be catastrophic not occasionally.

Yes. I don't know what kind of results an extended series of tests would produce, but that does seem a little excessive. A couple months ago, about the time the demo came out, someone made the point that the M3 is a bit unique in that it has more empty space in it than most other tanks. So there is more opportunity for a shot to go through without hitting anything vital. I don't personally know how true that is, or if it has been overmodeled, but I thought I'd mention it.

Michael

[Bone_Vulture]

Not that I want to drift in the wrong forum, but I noticed in CM:BB that Russian armor is more likely knocked out by partial penetrations than German. Especially heavy KV tanks. Must be an issue of simulated alloy quality.

[klapton]

I have not observed that problem with the M3. In the demo scenario, I knocked out all of them with the PIIIs.

[btm]

My experiences have been similar to klapton's. No problems taking out M3's at reasonable ranges with the PzIII.

As an aside-

Mr. Emrys is correct in stating that overpenetration was far from rare in naval combat- especially at close ranges wherein shells were likely to hit a ship's superstructure at shallow angles.

However, warships have a great deal of surface area relative to their vital components. A punchthrough hit on a warship has very little chance of destroying something important.

I would think that the opposite would be true of tanks, due to the close proximity of multiple critical components. In other words, it would seem that even a punchthrough could potentially disable an AFV.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by btm:

However, warships have a great deal of surface area relative to their vital components. A punchthrough hit on a warship has very little chance of destroying something important.

Hmm, that might be disputed based on some of the plans I've seen. Boilers and engines take up a lot of space inside a warship. A lot of what isn't taken up by machinery is given over to magazines. That leaves a fair amount of volume that could be described as non-critical, but I'm not certain that the proportions are dramatically different for a tank either. Ships are generally more resourceful when it comes to damage control. They can accept a fair amount and still be capable of fighting. If a tank loses a crew member or a weapon, it's really hurt and will probably withdraw from the fight if able. I guess I'd agree that tanks are more easily killed and much more easily mission killed. On the other hand, they are more easily recoverable too. A ship that sinks is probably gone for good. A tank that is merely knocked out can be recovered and repaired.

Michael

[Runyan99]

Even in the case of an overpenetration, or a low energy round which just 'pops' through, there is still the matter of the displaced armor. I understand that this loose armor acts as additional shrapnel.

[Determinant]

I am sorry that I cannot remember the source but I vaguely recall reading from a book about the '73 Yom Kippur war where an Israeli tank crew reported that they had been hit a large number of times by Arab AT weapons and that in some spots that they could look through the holes that had been drilled right through the tank.

Wrong war; wrong tanks; and wrong weapons of course. But it seems to suggest that penetration is not necessarily always fatal.

I think that the warship analogy is a good one. They are packed nearly just as tight as a tank and they sometimes stumble through more than their fair share of hits but can still float; move and fight but not necessarily all three!

[Caesar]

I don't have a problem if we were talking about a gun where it could easily penetrate both sides of the tank - I could see that it might go right through the tank without exploding. I also don't have a problem with a round that barely penetrates causing little behind armour effects. I can accept that a solid shot AP round may cause less damage behind the armour. The problem I am having is with an APHE that could barely if ever get through both sides, in an ideal firing position only occasionally able to cause a KO.

Yes the M3 is a big tank, but it has more crew than most other tanks and an extra gun, so it's not as though it is all empty space (though if this is being modelled in the code then that is very cool).

As far as I can see, in this circumstance, the most likely scenerio should be the shell penetrating one side and exploding within. If that wouldn't KO it, nothing would. It seems to me, that the behind armour effects are too little.