Looking to discuss 2pdr effectiveness in RL and CMAK

[rune]

Rexford,

Going from memory here, as I am from work, will follow up later when home. It states the add on armour for the G wasn't very good and didn't help much, and the Germans even added tracks and sandbags to try to help against the 2 pdr. Could it be that some of the armour added to the G was NOT face hardened, which in the book anyway, is referred to flame hardened? Part of the problem is some of the Panzer IIIs and IVs were called "specials" without really defining what they were. Of note in the book was drawings of the tanks and the armour in mm. The reason I brought up the sights again, is a Brigadier of the Hussars himself said it was the reason for the myth of 600 yards.

I also found it interesting that the Germans and Italians thought the British tanks were superior to the German Tanks. They say the 2 pdrs was better then the 50mm to about 1000 meters, where the 50mm finally surpassed the 2 pdr in penetration. That obviously changed once the longs came out.

All in all a interesting discussion. However, with this further proof, I absolutely agree with you, it is modelled correctly.

Rune

[rune]

Rexford,

Going from memory here, as I am from work, will follow up later when home. It states the add on armour for the G wasn't very good and didn't help much, and the Germans even added tracks and sandbags to try to help against the 2 pdr. Could it be that some of the armour added to the G was NOT face hardened, which in the book anyway, is referred to flame hardened? Part of the problem is some of the Panzer IIIs and IVs were called "specials" without really defining what they were. Of note in the book was drawings of the tanks and the armour in mm. The reason I brought up the sights again, is a Brigadier of the Hussars himself said it was the reason for the myth of 600 yards.

I also found it interesting that the Germans and Italians thought the British tanks were superior to the German Tanks. They say the 2 pdrs was better then the 50mm to about 1000 meters, where the 50mm finally surpassed the 2 pdr in penetration. That obviously changed once the longs came out.

All in all a interesting discussion. However, with this further proof, I absolutely agree with you, it is modelled correctly.

Rune

[Andreas]

'Specials' are usually the long-barreled versions, i.e. the 75L43 (later L48) and the 50L60 gun equipped IV and III versions.

[Andreas]

'Specials' are usually the long-barreled versions, i.e. the 75L43 (later L48) and the 50L60 gun equipped IV and III versions.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by rune:

Rexford,

Going from memory here, as I am from work, will follow up later when home. It states the add on armour for the G wasn't very good and didn't help much, and the Germans even added tracks and sandbags to try to help against the 2 pdr. Could it be that some of the armour added to the G was NOT face hardened, which in the book anyway, is referred to flame hardened? Part of the problem is some of the Panzer IIIs and IVs were called "specials" without really defining what they were. Of note in the book was drawings of the tanks and the armour in mm. The reason I brought up the sights again, is a Brigadier of the Hussars himself said it was the reason for the myth of 600 yards.

I also found it interesting that the Germans and Italians thought the British tanks were superior to the German Tanks. They say the 2 pdrs was better then the 50mm to about 1000 meters, where the 50mm finally surpassed the 2 pdr in penetration. That obviously changed once the longs came out.

All in all a interesting discussion. However, with this further proof, I absolutely agree with you, it is modelled correctly.

Rune

Does it have any pictures of "uparmoured" Gs, all the field uparmouring of Gs I've seen is tracks and wheels tacked onto the front, itself an indication that all was not well with the G 3cm armour basis.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by rune:

Rexford,

Going from memory here, as I am from work, will follow up later when home. It states the add on armour for the G wasn't very good and didn't help much, and the Germans even added tracks and sandbags to try to help against the 2 pdr. Could it be that some of the armour added to the G was NOT face hardened, which in the book anyway, is referred to flame hardened? Part of the problem is some of the Panzer IIIs and IVs were called "specials" without really defining what they were. Of note in the book was drawings of the tanks and the armour in mm. The reason I brought up the sights again, is a Brigadier of the Hussars himself said it was the reason for the myth of 600 yards.

I also found it interesting that the Germans and Italians thought the British tanks were superior to the German Tanks. They say the 2 pdrs was better then the 50mm to about 1000 meters, where the 50mm finally surpassed the 2 pdr in penetration. That obviously changed once the longs came out.

All in all a interesting discussion. However, with this further proof, I absolutely agree with you, it is modelled correctly.

Rune

Does it have any pictures of "uparmoured" Gs, all the field uparmouring of Gs I've seen is tracks and wheels tacked onto the front, itself an indication that all was not well with the G 3cm armour basis.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by rexford:

Originally posted by rune:

So why is CMAK thought by some to be unrealistic when 2 pdr armed tanks fight PzKpfw IIIG and IIIH? Looks okay to me.

Because Green R is taking Pitts at face value, which is maybe what Pitts did in reading reports of sub 500m penatrations on certian armour and sub-types of PIIIs. 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.

Because of pitt Green R feels that PIII should not be perforated at 500metres +

[Bastables]

Originally posted by rexford:

Originally posted by rune:

So why is CMAK thought by some to be unrealistic when 2 pdr armed tanks fight PzKpfw IIIG and IIIH? Looks okay to me.

Because Green R is taking Pitts at face value, which is maybe what Pitts did in reading reports of sub 500m penatrations on certian armour and sub-types of PIIIs. 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.

Because of pitt Green R feels that PIII should not be perforated at 500metres +

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Because of pitt Green R feels that PIII should not be perforated at 500metres +

Nothing like a bit of quality research from armour penetration experts like Pitt to underpin your argument.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Because of pitt Green R feels that PIII should not be perforated at 500metres +

Nothing like a bit of quality research from armour penetration experts like Pitt to underpin your argument.

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by rune:

Rexford,

The reason I brought up the sights again, is a Brigadier of the Hussars himself said it was the reason for the myth of 600 yards.

I also found it interesting that the Germans and Italians thought the British tanks were superior to the German Tanks. They say the 2 pdrs was better then the 50mm to about 1000 meters, where the 50mm finally surpassed the 2 pdr in penetration. That obviously changed once the longs came out.

Rune

Does that mean accuracy of the early 2pdrs is going to be reduced the patch?

I am not surprised by the Italians taking that viewpoint although they did have a few decent pieces of kit. But the Germans on superior British tanks - was Rommel very foxy then and British cavalry tactics of charging home to reduce the range extremely stupid beyond belief.

I remember Rune consulting his Grandpa and telling me that they considered Russian T-34s and KVs to be no problem!

Reality is a fragile thing :eek:

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by rune:

Rexford,

The reason I brought up the sights again, is a Brigadier of the Hussars himself said it was the reason for the myth of 600 yards.

I also found it interesting that the Germans and Italians thought the British tanks were superior to the German Tanks. They say the 2 pdrs was better then the 50mm to about 1000 meters, where the 50mm finally surpassed the 2 pdr in penetration. That obviously changed once the longs came out.

Rune

Does that mean accuracy of the early 2pdrs is going to be reduced the patch?

I am not surprised by the Italians taking that viewpoint although they did have a few decent pieces of kit. But the Germans on superior British tanks - was Rommel very foxy then and British cavalry tactics of charging home to reduce the range extremely stupid beyond belief.

I remember Rune consulting his Grandpa and telling me that they considered Russian T-34s and KVs to be no problem!

Reality is a fragile thing :eek:

[rune]

Hmm...I should tell Charles about it, but then AI think, how much do we screw it up. Obviously they had fixed the error by adjusting fire, how many units did or didn't fix the problem. Not sure of dropping accuracy would not just bve worse in the long run, as the book only covers 1941, were the sights ever fixed? Just not information to do anything on...

/tongue in cheek mode on

You would think that they would have saved all this information for us, knowing that someday I would be doing research on the most obscure facts of WWII for a computer game. Very incosniderate of them not to save all this data, like HE for 6 pdr guns amd the small arms of the South African Army Squads.

/tongue in cheek mode off

Rune

[rune]

Hmm...I should tell Charles about it, but then AI think, how much do we screw it up. Obviously they had fixed the error by adjusting fire, how many units did or didn't fix the problem. Not sure of dropping accuracy would not just bve worse in the long run, as the book only covers 1941, were the sights ever fixed? Just not information to do anything on...

/tongue in cheek mode on

You would think that they would have saved all this information for us, knowing that someday I would be doing research on the most obscure facts of WWII for a computer game. Very incosniderate of them not to save all this data, like HE for 6 pdr guns amd the small arms of the South African Army Squads.

/tongue in cheek mode off

Rune

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by rune:

/tongue in cheek mode on

You would think that they would have saved all this information for us, knowing that someday I would be doing research on the most obscure facts of WWII for a computer game. Very incosniderate of them not to save all this data, like HE for 6 pdr guns amd the small arms of the South African Army Squads.

/tongue in cheek mode off

You're right. In nearly every field of knowledge I have explored, I've found a "frontier" of determinability where the unknowns and unspecifiables begin to dominate and the whole argument becomes vaguer and vaguer until it finally peters out altogether. The mark of a true professional is knowing when to be serious and when to take it not too seriously. Sometimes you have to throw up your hands and just play the game. Fortunately, when all is said and done, we have a pretty good game to play.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by rune:

/tongue in cheek mode on

You would think that they would have saved all this information for us, knowing that someday I would be doing research on the most obscure facts of WWII for a computer game. Very incosniderate of them not to save all this data, like HE for 6 pdr guns amd the small arms of the South African Army Squads.

/tongue in cheek mode off

You're right. In nearly every field of knowledge I have explored, I've found a "frontier" of determinability where the unknowns and unspecifiables begin to dominate and the whole argument becomes vaguer and vaguer until it finally peters out altogether. The mark of a true professional is knowing when to be serious and when to take it not too seriously. Sometimes you have to throw up your hands and just play the game. Fortunately, when all is said and done, we have a pretty good game to play.

Michael

[Ron]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

You're right. In nearly every field of knowledge I have explored, I've found a "frontier" of determinability where the unknowns and unspecifiables begin to dominate and the whole argument becomes vaguer and vaguer until it finally peters out altogether. The mark of a true professional is knowing when to be serious and when to take it not too seriously. Sometimes you have to throw up your hands and just play the game. Fortunately, when all is said and done, we have a pretty good game to play.

Michael

Never were truer words spoken. Too bad Charles couldn't code up a program to incorporate this wisom into the 'collective'.

Err wait he has...

Ron

[Ron]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

You're right. In nearly every field of knowledge I have explored, I've found a "frontier" of determinability where the unknowns and unspecifiables begin to dominate and the whole argument becomes vaguer and vaguer until it finally peters out altogether. The mark of a true professional is knowing when to be serious and when to take it not too seriously. Sometimes you have to throw up your hands and just play the game. Fortunately, when all is said and done, we have a pretty good game to play.

Michael

Never were truer words spoken. Too bad Charles couldn't code up a program to incorporate this wisom into the 'collective'.

Err wait he has...

Ron

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

You're right. In nearly every field of knowledge I have explored, I've found a "frontier" of determinability where the unknowns and unspecifiables begin to dominate and the whole argument becomes vaguer and vaguer until it finally peters out altogether. The mark of a true professional is knowing when to be serious and when to take it not too seriously. Sometimes you have to throw up your hands and just play the game. Fortunately, when all is said and done, we have a pretty good game to play.

Michael

Spot on. The classic example for me of the difficulties of assessing gunnery accuracy and effectiveness can be seen in the battle of Jutland.

Here you have a score or so of BBs and BCs engaging each other with their primary armament. There are hundreds of trained professional observers in both fleets with no other aim than to record data. They purport to record targets; range; direction; bearings; locations; and the effect of the fire.

Despite all this and despite the most painstaking post-action examination of the primary material historians are still able to disagree on what it all meant.

A battle on land is far more confused, various and it is not recorded with the same attempt at precision that the navy would purport to have.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

You're right. In nearly every field of knowledge I have explored, I've found a "frontier" of determinability where the unknowns and unspecifiables begin to dominate and the whole argument becomes vaguer and vaguer until it finally peters out altogether. The mark of a true professional is knowing when to be serious and when to take it not too seriously. Sometimes you have to throw up your hands and just play the game. Fortunately, when all is said and done, we have a pretty good game to play.

Michael

Spot on. The classic example for me of the difficulties of assessing gunnery accuracy and effectiveness can be seen in the battle of Jutland.

Here you have a score or so of BBs and BCs engaging each other with their primary armament. There are hundreds of trained professional observers in both fleets with no other aim than to record data. They purport to record targets; range; direction; bearings; locations; and the effect of the fire.

Despite all this and despite the most painstaking post-action examination of the primary material historians are still able to disagree on what it all meant.

A battle on land is far more confused, various and it is not recorded with the same attempt at precision that the navy would purport to have.

[rexford]

Two 30mm homogeneous plates would resist like a single homogeneous plate of about 43mm , which 2 pdr AP would penetrate at 1200 yards or so.

Please note that the above estimate for two layered in-contact 30mm plates is based on limited data from a few tests, and might be off by quite a bit.

It is safe to say that 30mm/30mm layered homogeneous plates in-contact would resist like much less than a single 60mm plate and should be defeated beyond 800 yards by 2 pdr AP.

[rexford]

Two 30mm homogeneous plates would resist like a single homogeneous plate of about 43mm , which 2 pdr AP would penetrate at 1200 yards or so.

Please note that the above estimate for two layered in-contact 30mm plates is based on limited data from a few tests, and might be off by quite a bit.

It is safe to say that 30mm/30mm layered homogeneous plates in-contact would resist like much less than a single 60mm plate and should be defeated beyond 800 yards by 2 pdr AP.

[rune]

As promised, the quote:

" In the Panzer IIIG this involved a smallish shield of 40mm over the gun mounting and a long 40mm plate about 9 inches wide over the vertical front pf the superstructure. Nothing sdeems to have been done to the upper and lower nose plates or to the sides. In the Panzer IV the various expedients included the placing of extra plates of 20mm armour along the vertical sides, above and below the protection afforded by the tracks, and an extra 30mm over the vertical superstructure.

The additional protection did not, however, defeat the 2 pdrs. Experiments made on German tanks captured in the Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards the British guns could penetrate the 40mm of double plates on the sides.... Head on all shots fired at 500 yards penetrated the double plates that protected the driver's and gunner's compartments. There was no reinforcement ont he nose. The conclusion of Middle East experts was, therefore, the Panzer IV "was completely vunerable" to the British 2 pdr..."

Rune

[rune]

As promised, the quote:

" In the Panzer IIIG this involved a smallish shield of 40mm over the gun mounting and a long 40mm plate about 9 inches wide over the vertical front pf the superstructure. Nothing sdeems to have been done to the upper and lower nose plates or to the sides. In the Panzer IV the various expedients included the placing of extra plates of 20mm armour along the vertical sides, above and below the protection afforded by the tracks, and an extra 30mm over the vertical superstructure.

The additional protection did not, however, defeat the 2 pdrs. Experiments made on German tanks captured in the Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards the British guns could penetrate the 40mm of double plates on the sides.... Head on all shots fired at 500 yards penetrated the double plates that protected the driver's and gunner's compartments. There was no reinforcement ont he nose. The conclusion of Middle East experts was, therefore, the Panzer IV "was completely vunerable" to the British 2 pdr..."

Rune

[Bastables]

Originally posted by rune:

As promised, the quote:

" In the Panzer IIIG this involved a smallish shield of 40mm over the gun mounting and a long 40mm plate about 9 inches wide over the vertical front pf the superstructure. Nothing sdeems to have been done to the upper and lower nose plates or to the sides. In the Panzer IV the various expedients included the placing of extra plates of 20mm armour along the vertical sides, above and below the protection afforded by the tracks, and an extra 30mm over the vertical superstructure.

Rune

This is not upgrading to PIII H standred at all, it's seems to be more of a field lash up with god knows what type of armour, Machine quality, FH, RHA? It also seems to cover the opposite areas of the ausfH subtype.

Rune are there any pictures at all of these lash ups?