Treeburst155 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 They can hold up fairly well against 88's as close as 700 meters away. This means a hull down M3 at about 700 meters is virtually unkillable from the front. Very interesting.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave H Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Originally posted by Treeburst155: They can hold up fairly well against 88's as close as 700 meters away. This means a hull down M3 at about 700 meters is virtually unkillable from the front. Very interesting.... I guess that means I can pardon my Pz III crews who couldn't kill, or even dent, hull-down M3s. Not that many of the German crewmen involved survived the contact. :eek: :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kozure Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Sounds like some of manner testing is needed. Have you tried setting up a test scenario with a line of 88s vs a line of hull down M3s at varying distances? [ January 12, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Kozure ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 The hull down M3 is still killable from the front. The upper hull remains exposed even when hull down. Turret hits will not kill at 700 meters, but hits on the upper hull can do the trick. I didn't realize the upper hull was exposed when in "hull down" position. Maybe it's just the M3? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarker Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I think hull down with the Grant can reference getting as much of the tank concealed as possible and still leave the 75 free to fire also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 13, 2004 Author Share Posted January 13, 2004 Considering the strength of the Grant turret, I'd rather not have the 75mm so I could get fully hull down. That turret is one tough nut to crack. Not so, the upper hull. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterX Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Treeburst posted: They can hold up fairly well against 88's as close as 700 meters away. Treeburst, it sounds like your playing the scenario Flak Front! from the CD. One thing to consider in that desert battle is that the temperature is set to Hot, simulating the heat/haze phenomenon which, as testing shows, exerts a doleful effect on long range gunnery. I've also noticed that the M3 is very prone to being 'shocked'. Perhaps this is due to the unusual unit density inside the hull: seven men. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangerousdave Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I'm certainly not a grog, but isn't the Lee the US M3 and the Grant the UK version of that, with a different (larger) turret? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by dangerousdave: I'm certainly not a grog, but isn't the Lee the US M3 and the Grant the UK version of that, with a different (larger) turret? The Brits also used the Lee variant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangerousdave Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Now I'm curious, and don't have the game with me at work...do they have the Grant in the game? I just played them in the demo, and they looked like Lees. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 IIRC the 37mm turret ring diameter was the same, but the British designed turret had a built-in radio sponson in the rear and of course no m.g. cupola. The radio sponson's external overhang probably makes it look larger, and it a "bulk" sense, it is. I suspect the weight was about equal, given the loss of the cupola was traded off with additional armor mass for the sponson. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangerousdave Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Ah, that's what it was. I just recall it from building the models many years ago. And that was the yanks in the demo, so it would make sense they were Lees. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 13, 2004 Author Share Posted January 13, 2004 PeterX, I don't think the temperature would affect penetration chances, just the chance to hit in the first place. Grants & Lees, I'm not sure which I'm up against. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kozure Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Tested. I made a 800m x 800m map, with 100m wide firing lanes running E-W, each with a high elevation hill blocking view to the next firing lane. At the west end of each firing lane is a M3 with a small elevation to use for hull down. At the other end of each firing lane, an 88mm Flak, with ranges varying from 700m distant to 400m distant. Each range had a duplicate for checking purposes, thus, there were two 88s firing at 700m, two firing at 600m, etc. Dry ground, Sand terrain, midday, warm temperature. All crews regular, standard ammo loadout. Tanks instructed to find hull down positions relative to 88mm cannon. Results were as follows: [note: edited from previous posting - error in transcription - several "partial" penetrations corrected to "full" penetrations] 700m Lane 1: M3 front turret full penetration, knocked out, crew bails with 3 survivors Lane 2: M3 front turret partial penetration, knocked out, crew bails with 5 survivors 600m Lane 1: M3 damaged by front turret partial penetration, then knocked out by full penetration upper hull, crew bails with 4 survivors Lane 2: M3 gun damaged 500m Lane 1: M3 front turret full penetration, crew bails with 3 survivors Lane 2: M3 front turret full penetration, crew bails with 2 survivors 400m Lane 1: Survives until end of test. No hits, no damage. Lane 1: Survives until end of test. No hits, no damage. I'm not at all sure why the tanks at 400m lived -probably some manner of fluke; but as the results show, they are not unkillable from the front by 88mm fire. It's quite easy to make firing lanes and test in this manner. Try it yourself if you're not convinced. I'll run the test again tonight and repost new results. [ January 13, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: Kozure ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 13, 2004 Author Share Posted January 13, 2004 Notice that all your turret hits are only PARTIAL penetrations. The only clean knockout you have there is the single upper hull penetration...and this is with the mighty 88! With lesser guns the Grant/Lee would be very tough indeed. That is, if the Achilles Heel upper hull could be put hull down. [ January 12, 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Doubtless the 88 crew firing at the M3 at 400 meters was laughing their cojones off, probably causing that result. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by dangerousdave: And that was the yanks in the demo, so it would make sense they were Lees. Wouldn't that make more sense if they were the Reb's? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by Treeburst155: With lesser guns the Grant/Lee would be very tough indeed. That is, if the Achilles Heel upper hull could be put hull down. And you'd have... what, a 37mm gun to shoot back at them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 13, 2004 Author Share Posted January 13, 2004 I think a 37mm gun that rotates 360 degrees and is killable only by AT assets more powerful than a 75mm/43 would be quite handy in many situations. The distraction value alone would be nice. In any case, the upper hull is the undoing of the UberGrant; but the test above does not show the Grant turret to be anything less than very tough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by Treeburst155: I didn't realize the upper hull was exposed when in "hull down" position. Maybe it's just the M3? No, it's the same for all AFVs. It's one of the CM series small "secrets" and the it's due to the all powerful "abstration" which there are so many of. Approx 25 % of all shots will be upper hull hits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 If only 25% can hit the upper hull when a Grant is hulldown then it follows that all other hits will impact the "uber-turret" where even high velocity 88mm shells have trouble penetrating at 700 metres. Does this seem reasonable when one considers that an 88 in CMBB was able to routinely penetrate IS 2's at pretty decent ranges? Seems a tad unusual to me and if it's the case then I don't see why the U.S. ever bothered to upgrade to the Sherman when they had a far more resilient design from day one. :confused: Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Seems a tad unusual to me and if it's the case then I don't see why the U.S. ever bothered to upgrade to the Sherman when they had a far more resilient design from day one. With a 37mm gun, the size of a barn, main armament hidden in a sponsoon, etc.pp. Not sure about the mechanical reliability of the M3, wasn't that a bit shoddy too? So there were lots of reasons to upgrade, regardless of how the turret front performed in hull-down situations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kozure Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by Treeburst155: Notice that all your turret hits are only PARTIAL penetrations. The only clean knockout you have there is the single upper hull penetration...and this is with the mighty 88! With lesser guns the Grant/Lee would be very tough indeed. That is, if the Achilles Heel upper hull could be put hull down. Ooops... I made a transcription error from my notes. I have corrected the table above. Three of the five front turret hits were actual full penetrations. I cut and paste lines and then forgot to edit whether they were full or partial penetrations. Table edited to match actual results. As I said - test it yourself. Very simple to make a firing range map/scenario (about 5 minutes) and then run through the results. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 On a slightly different tact, the 37mm gun is exactly the same as the one in the Stuart/Honey? Is it me, or does the one in the grant/lee seem to be more effective? Must be just me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 13, 2004 Author Share Posted January 13, 2004 I think I'll spend some time today, throwing various AT rounds at a hull down Grant at various ranges, just for fun. I'd like to get a turret hit:upper hull hit ratio; but that might be difficult to do with a large number of tanks on a firing range. 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.