6 pdr APCBC vs Tiger

[rexford]

Seeing that Tiger is my favorite tank, I'am always on the look-out for overestimates of Allied weapon effectiveness. Methinks that 6 pdr APCBC from the gun with 793 m/s muzzle velocity may be too powerful.

British figures for APCBC penetration of 6 pdr (793 m/s M.V.) are similar to the following (my curvefitting from British Ordnance Board curves may introduce some minor variations here and there):

H is homogeneous armor, FH is face-hardened

100m, 107mm H, 112mm FH

250m

103mm H, 108mm FH

500m

96mm H, 102mm FH

1000m

84mm H, 91mm FH

2000m

64mm H, 71mm FH

Are the penetration figures in CMAK for 6 pdr APCBC face-hardened or homogeneous penetration? The CMAK figures seem closer to the face-hardened penetration stats although CMAK numbers are a tad higher.

It might also be good if the penetration figures for 2 pdr APCBC, 17 pdr APCBC, U.S. 75mm ammo and other important game ammo used by Allies could be identified as homogeneous or face-hardened armor performance.

[Mark Gallear]

I want to encourage getting these little details right . I have noticed that the lighter airborne 6pdr version has slightly lower muzzle velocity and the US 57mm has a longer gun and higher muzzle velocity are these factors factured into CMAK. Although not sure airborne version would have been used in this theatre.

[MikeyD]

I think I've seen a 6 pdr round hole a Tiger front from 500m in the game, which mightily surprised me. But that was the tungsten round that shows up around April 43 with a whopping 153mm penetration at 500m! Before that its much more iffy with APCBC listed as 110m at 500m (falling between your H and FH numbers). I know with Sherman ammo BFc claims to take into account homogeneous vs face-hardened, and shot versus ballistic cap. I'd be surprised if they weren't as careful for 6 pdr too, since they specify APCBC in their ammoo tables.

[Mark Gallear]

There are a number of occasions in which 6pdrs at close rang KO out Tiger 1s. (AT guns from Ambush positions).

I think the first Tiger 1 captured by the British in the Desert now in the Tank Musuem had a round bounce off the bottom of the gun brrel on to the top hull thin armour. It did no damage but the crew panicked and bailed out. Its accepted there was no way the British gun could have normally pentrated the Tigers armour.

Blaine did you spot my posting on the 2pdr HE round in the long 2pdr realism thread?

[SgtMuhammed]

Actually that round shattered the linkage to the gun counterweight (a "gun hit" "damaged" in game terms). Another round also went through the driver's hatch and it had to be replaced.

They are still unsure excactly why the crew bailed though.

[rexford]

Lined up three 6 pdr ATG against 3 Tigers during early 1943 scenario, no tungsten rounds. 250m range with guns pointed along hull direction (no side angle).

No 6 pdr APCBC penetrations of Tiger front armor, none expected.

So the penetration data listed in CMAK for 6 pdr APCBC probably is face-hardened performance.

[Siege]

Driver dead, gun inoperative, and The British were coming! the British were coming!

If I were in a tank that couldn't run or shoot back, I'd bail too.

-Hans

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Siege:

Driver dead, gun inoperative, and The British were coming! the British were coming!

If I were in a tank that couldn't run or shoot back, I'd bail too.

-Hans

Yeah, but you lack the steely glint in your eye that the veteran elite Tiger crews had. I am sure they just went back to get some towels to clean up the mess, and were very upset when someone had taken their tank while they were gone.