Looking to discuss 2pdr effectiveness in RL and CMAK

[The Green Rascal]

Managed to get another QB in this morning, and was facing mixed Panzer IIIs with Crusader IIIs in Oct 1941 in flat open terrain. I was very suprised to see my 'puny' 2 pdrs killing Panzers frontally at long range and so set up a quick test scenario.

It seems that a 2pdr in CMAK is quite capable of killing a PZIII frontally at 1000m, I haven't tested further ranges yet. I recently read Barrie Pitts Crucible Of War (hardback version) and had recalled his description of a classic 2pdr v's Panzer III action during Battleaxe. In Vol 1 P304-305 there is a very good description of the problems the British faced, and he states that 2 pdrs could do nothing but trivial damage against PzIIIs beyond 500m. Other battle descriptions in that volume and volume 2 repeat this scenario.

Can anyone advise if Pitt is wrong? My library is very limited so I haven't got much to quote against him. Could there be an error in CMAK either with 2pdrs or Panzer armour (burn the heretic ). Finally will BFC ever consider releasing the code for us to play with if they have done with the engine?

I don't play Axis usually, so I'm not whinging about losing percieved uber-tanks, but I felt that it was fairly unsatisfying in not to be more challenged facing down the Panzers. Please feel free to shatter my and Mr Pitts preconcieved ideas

[The Green Rascal]

Managed to get another QB in this morning, and was facing mixed Panzer IIIs with Crusader IIIs in Oct 1941 in flat open terrain. I was very suprised to see my 'puny' 2 pdrs killing Panzers frontally at long range and so set up a quick test scenario.

It seems that a 2pdr in CMAK is quite capable of killing a PZIII frontally at 1000m, I haven't tested further ranges yet. I recently read Barrie Pitts Crucible Of War (hardback version) and had recalled his description of a classic 2pdr v's Panzer III action during Battleaxe. In Vol 1 P304-305 there is a very good description of the problems the British faced, and he states that 2 pdrs could do nothing but trivial damage against PzIIIs beyond 500m. Other battle descriptions in that volume and volume 2 repeat this scenario.

Can anyone advise if Pitt is wrong? My library is very limited so I haven't got much to quote against him. Could there be an error in CMAK either with 2pdrs or Panzer armour (burn the heretic ). Finally will BFC ever consider releasing the code for us to play with if they have done with the engine?

I don't play Axis usually, so I'm not whinging about losing percieved uber-tanks, but I felt that it was fairly unsatisfying in not to be more challenged facing down the Panzers. Please feel free to shatter my and Mr Pitts preconcieved ideas

[Bastables]

sorry three types of PIII were shipped over to Africa when DAK was deployed, The PIIIF/G with 3cm of FH armour and the PIIIH with 3cm+3cm FH hull plates. The latter armour configuration is the one that caused such problems for the 2pdr. (As did the 5cm armour basis of late PIVDs and PIVEs).

Battleaxe saw the deployment of Pz regt 8 of 15 Pz div mostly equiped with PIIIHs, most of the Gs and F of Pz regt 5 of 5 light divs having been wasted away in skorpion and Toburk.

[ December 04, 2003, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Bastables]

sorry three types of PIII were shipped over to Africa when DAK was deployed, The PIIIF/G with 3cm of FH armour and the PIIIH with 3cm+3cm FH hull plates. The latter armour configuration is the one that caused such problems for the 2pdr. (As did the 5cm armour basis of late PIVDs and PIVEs).

Battleaxe saw the deployment of Pz regt 8 of 15 Pz div mostly equiped with PIIIHs, most of the Gs and F of Pz regt 5 of 5 light divs having been wasted away in skorpion and Toburk.

[ December 04, 2003, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Jussi Köhler]

27 mins and you get an answer from a terrifyingly low-numbered member:)

Not a bad question it seems

[Jussi Köhler]

27 mins and you get an answer from a terrifyingly low-numbered member:)

Not a bad question it seems

[rexford]

Bastables is right on the mark.

The 32mm/30mm face-hardened combo on the front hull of PzKpfw IIIH caused 2 pdr AP hits to shatter at 200 yards during British tests in Cairo (May 1942).

The upper area of the gun mantlet on PzKpfw IIIH is 35mm face-hardened angled at about 38 degrees from vertical, which resists 2 pdr hits like about 52mm vertical. 2 pdr AP penetrates 51mm face-hardened at 500 yards, so I would guess that the 2 pdr successes were occurring against the mantlet.

There is a current question regarding whether the Cairo tests were with 0 degree side angle or 30 degrees. The report doesn't say which angle.

If a 30 degree side angle was used at Cairo, the effective resistance of the 32mm/30mm driver plate on PzKpfw IIIH would be about 59mm.

Does the Battleaxe report say anything about where the 500 yard penetrations by 2 pdr were occurring, or indicate or suggest that the hull front was vulnerable at 500 yards to 2 pdr hits?

[rexford]

Bastables is right on the mark.

The 32mm/30mm face-hardened combo on the front hull of PzKpfw IIIH caused 2 pdr AP hits to shatter at 200 yards during British tests in Cairo (May 1942).

The upper area of the gun mantlet on PzKpfw IIIH is 35mm face-hardened angled at about 38 degrees from vertical, which resists 2 pdr hits like about 52mm vertical. 2 pdr AP penetrates 51mm face-hardened at 500 yards, so I would guess that the 2 pdr successes were occurring against the mantlet.

There is a current question regarding whether the Cairo tests were with 0 degree side angle or 30 degrees. The report doesn't say which angle.

If a 30 degree side angle was used at Cairo, the effective resistance of the 32mm/30mm driver plate on PzKpfw IIIH would be about 59mm.

Does the Battleaxe report say anything about where the 500 yard penetrations by 2 pdr were occurring, or indicate or suggest that the hull front was vulnerable at 500 yards to 2 pdr hits?

[The Green Rascal]

Many thanks for the response Bastables. Unhelpully Pitt doesn't specify or exclude exact model types in that chapter, but it certainly reads like he is saying the 2pdr is ineffective against all Panzer IIIs & IVs over 500m.

In my CMAK test scenario I included PzIIIHs as targets as well as other models. They are also no problem for the 2pdr in the game at least. While the 2pdrs could not hurt the reinforced hull, they comfortably get through the front turret at over 1000m range, which doesn't really do justice to your anecdote about them being a problem.

[ December 04, 2003, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: The Green Rascal ]

[The Green Rascal]

Many thanks for the response Bastables. Unhelpully Pitt doesn't specify or exclude exact model types in that chapter, but it certainly reads like he is saying the 2pdr is ineffective against all Panzer IIIs & IVs over 500m.

In my CMAK test scenario I included PzIIIHs as targets as well as other models. They are also no problem for the 2pdr in the game at least. While the 2pdrs could not hurt the reinforced hull, they comfortably get through the front turret at over 1000m range, which doesn't really do justice to your anecdote about them being a problem.

[ December 04, 2003, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: The Green Rascal ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

Many thanks for the response Bastables. Unhelpully Pitt doesn't specify or exclude exact model types in that chapter, but it certainly reads like he is saying the 2pdr is ineffective against all Panzer IIIs & IVs over 500m.

In my CMAK test scenario I included PzIIIHs as targets as well as other models. They are also no problem for the 2pdr in the game at least. While the 2pdrs could not hurt the reinforced hull, they comfortably get through the front turret at over 1000m range, which doesn't really do justice to your anecdote about them being a problem.

Table 4.1.2 extrapolated from firing test "carried out" by Lt.Col Drew and Col Jarrett show the PIIIH at a 30deg side angle was invunerable to 2pdr strikes on the front Superstructure and Hull armour. Turret could be perforated at 800yds 30deg side angle and Mantlet was perforated at 200yds 30 deg side angle.

You're probably hitting the "turret" with no oblique/side angle.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

Many thanks for the response Bastables. Unhelpully Pitt doesn't specify or exclude exact model types in that chapter, but it certainly reads like he is saying the 2pdr is ineffective against all Panzer IIIs & IVs over 500m.

In my CMAK test scenario I included PzIIIHs as targets as well as other models. They are also no problem for the 2pdr in the game at least. While the 2pdrs could not hurt the reinforced hull, they comfortably get through the front turret at over 1000m range, which doesn't really do justice to your anecdote about them being a problem.

Table 4.1.2 extrapolated from firing test "carried out" by Lt.Col Drew and Col Jarrett show the PIIIH at a 30deg side angle was invunerable to 2pdr strikes on the front Superstructure and Hull armour. Turret could be perforated at 800yds 30deg side angle and Mantlet was perforated at 200yds 30 deg side angle.

You're probably hitting the "turret" with no oblique/side angle.

[The Green Rascal]

Many thanks to Rexford as well. As I mentioned above Pitt doesn't specify models, only the fact (repeatedly) that against 'Panzer IIIs' 2pdrs are ineffective over 500m during Battleaxe. He also doesn't specify what in particular they hit - if needed - to become effective under 500m.

If he is talking specifically about PzIIIHs then are we in agreement with him? If that is the case then unfortunately CMAK does not reflect it. If I understand (sorry I'm a bit slow today ) then you are saying that 2pdr AP penetration against the turret in RL was very marginal at 500m, which doesn't square with the game which kills them at 1000m.

If he is talking about all PZIII models (which is how it reads) then am I right in saying that we disagree with him, CMAK is right, and that 2pdrs could indeed handle IIIFs, IIIGs and even IIIHs frontally at ranges over 500m? If so is there any historical evidence or other sources for this?

I think that CM exacerbates any problem here because of the typical engagement ranges and conditions in the game. 500-1500m is a common duelling distance, and invariably it will be a hull down situation.

[The Green Rascal]

Many thanks to Rexford as well. As I mentioned above Pitt doesn't specify models, only the fact (repeatedly) that against 'Panzer IIIs' 2pdrs are ineffective over 500m during Battleaxe. He also doesn't specify what in particular they hit - if needed - to become effective under 500m.

If he is talking specifically about PzIIIHs then are we in agreement with him? If that is the case then unfortunately CMAK does not reflect it. If I understand (sorry I'm a bit slow today ) then you are saying that 2pdr AP penetration against the turret in RL was very marginal at 500m, which doesn't square with the game which kills them at 1000m.

If he is talking about all PZIII models (which is how it reads) then am I right in saying that we disagree with him, CMAK is right, and that 2pdrs could indeed handle IIIFs, IIIGs and even IIIHs frontally at ranges over 500m? If so is there any historical evidence or other sources for this?

I think that CM exacerbates any problem here because of the typical engagement ranges and conditions in the game. 500-1500m is a common duelling distance, and invariably it will be a hull down situation.

[rune]

Re-read bastable's post. Test firings showed the turret being penetrated at 800 yards at a 30 degree angle, with 0 degree angle, 1000 yards is a possibility. Pitt does not mention what type of panzer III nor where the shots were hitting. They are not out of agreement.

Rune

[rune]

Re-read bastable's post. Test firings showed the turret being penetrated at 800 yards at a 30 degree angle, with 0 degree angle, 1000 yards is a possibility. Pitt does not mention what type of panzer III nor where the shots were hitting. They are not out of agreement.

Rune

[The Green Rascal]

Uh, ok Mr Rune sir! Consider my forelock tugged. I hadn't replied to Bastables post because we were cross posting over each other, so I gave the thread time to catch it's breath if that is allowed.

So far Bastables has said that PZIIIH front turrets could be perforated at 800m and supplied that report (thanks!), as against Barrie Pitt's assertions and Rexford who both seem to be saying in different ways that 500m is the limit of effective range. I'm still hoping for some further comments.

If Bastables report is the ulimate deciding factor and we accept PZIIIs were destroyed at 800m frontally by 2pdrs, then it is definitely not in agreement with Pitt at the very least.

[The Green Rascal]

Uh, ok Mr Rune sir! Consider my forelock tugged. I hadn't replied to Bastables post because we were cross posting over each other, so I gave the thread time to catch it's breath if that is allowed.

So far Bastables has said that PZIIIH front turrets could be perforated at 800m and supplied that report (thanks!), as against Barrie Pitt's assertions and Rexford who both seem to be saying in different ways that 500m is the limit of effective range. I'm still hoping for some further comments.

If Bastables report is the ulimate deciding factor and we accept PZIIIs were destroyed at 800m frontally by 2pdrs, then it is definitely not in agreement with Pitt at the very least.

[MikeyD]

I just checked the game and the 2 pdr is said to penetrate 76mm@zero degrees/59mm@30 degrees from 500m out.

Rexford, on the other hand, pegs 2 pdr penetration from 500m at just 51mm at zero degrees, significantly below the game's specs.

I'm reminded of our old debate over IS-2 frontal armor in CMBB. The problem there turned out to be duelling "reliable" data tables. I wonder if CM is working off a 59mm@30 degree assumption when it should instead have been read as from zero degrees?

[MikeyD]

I just checked the game and the 2 pdr is said to penetrate 76mm@zero degrees/59mm@30 degrees from 500m out.

Rexford, on the other hand, pegs 2 pdr penetration from 500m at just 51mm at zero degrees, significantly below the game's specs.

I'm reminded of our old debate over IS-2 frontal armor in CMBB. The problem there turned out to be duelling "reliable" data tables. I wonder if CM is working off a 59mm@30 degree assumption when it should instead have been read as from zero degrees?

[JasonC]

While some of the Pz IIIs shipped to North Africa were G model (the tropical filter mods were made to Gs), the reports I have seen say they were all up-armored at the latest after arriving in Tripoli, before being sent to the front. A field uparmored G is indistinguishable from an H, in gun and armor terms anyway.

Those would be the models present in the fall of 1941, for the Battleaxe period. In the Gazala battles in the summer of 1942, the most common model was apparently an early J (short), with 50mm front rather than 30+30. These arrived from the winter period back at El Aghelia, through the May fight at the Gazala line.

There are British action reports of 2 pdr failure against Pz IIIs from the very first engagement with DAK, so there is no evidence of an earlier era facing 30-37mm unimproved Gs.

"Late models had 30 mm plates added to hull and superstructure in front, and lower hull in the rear" - is said of Gs, not just Hs. (The Hs had widened tracks to accomodate the additional weight and other changes - turret basket e.g. - distinguishing them from uparmored Gs).

[JasonC]

While some of the Pz IIIs shipped to North Africa were G model (the tropical filter mods were made to Gs), the reports I have seen say they were all up-armored at the latest after arriving in Tripoli, before being sent to the front. A field uparmored G is indistinguishable from an H, in gun and armor terms anyway.

Those would be the models present in the fall of 1941, for the Battleaxe period. In the Gazala battles in the summer of 1942, the most common model was apparently an early J (short), with 50mm front rather than 30+30. These arrived from the winter period back at El Aghelia, through the May fight at the Gazala line.

There are British action reports of 2 pdr failure against Pz IIIs from the very first engagement with DAK, so there is no evidence of an earlier era facing 30-37mm unimproved Gs.

"Late models had 30 mm plates added to hull and superstructure in front, and lower hull in the rear" - is said of Gs, not just Hs. (The Hs had widened tracks to accomodate the additional weight and other changes - turret basket e.g. - distinguishing them from uparmored Gs).

[billybob2002]

Crusader III had a 6pdr (57mm), not a 2pdr (40mm). Crusader I and II had the 2pdr.

[billybob2002]

Crusader III had a 6pdr (57mm), not a 2pdr (40mm). Crusader I and II had the 2pdr.

[flamingknives]

Good first post BillyBob.

A 6pdr would definately make it uncomfortable in a PzIII