Why KV has "very low" chance at 90 meters to PzIII?

[Gryphon]

I suspect, but don't know, that the MkIIIM wasn't the most common variety of MkIII. So the 76mm-armed KV & T-34 had better luck against most '41-'43 German armor.

Does anyone have the model quantities at their fingertips?

There were 250 Pz III M's produced from oct 1942 till feb 1943. (Encyclopedia of German Tanks)

That compared to the roughly 4500 Pz IIIs of all types isn't a whole lot.

About the armor protection, i read an instance where an IS-2 couldn't penetrate the front of a Pz III due to the spaced armor and the fact that IS-2s were using APHE ammo.

Regards,

Gryphon

[kevsharr]

Originally posted by Aacooper:

I suspect, but don't know, that the MkIIIM wasn't the most common variety of MkIII. So the 76mm-armed KV & T-34 had better luck against most '41-'43 German armor.

Does anyone have the model quantities at their fingertips?

Let's see,Ausf.A-10 in 1937.Ausf.B-15 in '37.Ausf.c-15 in'37 to '38.Ausf.d-30 from jan.to june '38.Ausf.E-96 from dec.'38 tooct.'39.Ausf.F-435 from sept.'39 tojuly'40.Ausf.G-600 from apr.40 to feb.41.Ausf.H-308 from oct.40 to apr.41.Ausf.J(the biggest production run also mounted the 5cm KwKL/42)1.549 from mar.41 to july 42.Ausf.J(mounting the 5cm.KwK39 L/60)1.067 from dec.41 tojuly 42.Ausf.L-653 from june-dec.42.Ausf.M-250 from oct.42 to feb.43.Ausf.N-663 from june 42 aug.43+37 converted from rebuilt pz.III

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Lindan:

[i think there was mentioned somewhere that the fitting together of two face-hardened plates had an armor effect that exceeded it'S cumulative thickness.

If in doubt: go ask Rexford! [/QB]

I thought that two separate armour (RHA) plates bolted or welded onto each other actually offered less equivalent protection than a single plate of identical thickness. Another one of the reasons why PIVs/StuG went from 5cm + 3cm welded/bolted to a single 8cm piece for the glacis.

Spaced armour was supposed to prematurely detonate AP shells.

[ September 04, 2002, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[kevsharr]

[Bastables]

And you're quite likely correct, I'm going off an old Osprey book and offhand comments by Jentz in picture captions of ausf J with long 5cm guns.

[Herr Oberst]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Side angle is in the calculation?? wow...the best i read so far...so will tank crews use this and not place their vehicles with point blank to the ennemy??

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Wow, what can I say, Im impressed!! Yes, please ask Charles to give us all an explenation on what goes on in the calculations, I wouldnt have belived this attentio to detail was modeled!

NoObs!

Compound angle (X, Y, and Z axis) has been in the armor calcs since the beginning to yield the correct effective armor thickness.

Always, always park your Tiger at an angle to the threat. CMBO's Last Defense would have taught you that, if the Tigerfiebel (spelling anyone?) didn't.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by K_Tiger:

Side angle is in the calculation?? wow...the best i read so far...so will tank crews use this and not place their vehicles with point blank to the ennemy??

I've been doing this in CMBO from the beginning.

BTW, some of the first images that BTS ever released in relation to CM were some penetration graphs of various weapons vs. various vehicles at all different angles and ranges. A very elegant way to represent some very complex calculations.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Grisha:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What was the point of making SU-76 then if they could not penetrate anything? Just as an infantry support?

Yes, killmore, SU-76 was meant as infantry support, not something you wanted to use in tank vs tank encounters.</font>

[Andreas]

I always thought their raison d'etre was to utilise the car manufacturing assembly lines that could only churn out light tanks to produce somefink with a decent gun. The SU76 is on the T70 light tank chassis, not? So basically the same idea as the Germans with the Panzerjaeger I. Use a hopelessly outdated chassis to make something semi-useful.

[Chad Harrison]

I was messing around last night and wanted to have some armor combat. So I played the steppe battle and gave the Russians 200% troops, which gave them 5 tanks. So the Germans came along and I knocked out quite a few of them with the AT guns! I engaged them with my tanks in a flanking maneuvere and started to knock out the remaining few. Them came the eye candy part.

Only two Mark III's remained, and my KV's came up on them from the side. They started to fire at each other, and all the sudden **BOOM**! A Mark III goes up in a ball of flame from a front turret penetration! Then a second later, **BOOM**! The last Mark III goes up in a ball of flame from a front turret penetration! Explosions look great, and they are downplayed from CMBO, but I think that the new vehicle explosions are more real to life than the 1000lb bomb going off in a stuart.

[K_Tiger]

I've been doing this in CMBO from the beginning

What did you do? You place your tank in a 30 degree angle to your ennemy tank?? Did i miss something in the past 3 years??

There were a couple of posts about this topic, seems i missunderstood somthing...and why do the tac ai always place the tanks in a straigth line to each other?

[killmore]

1) Since you mentioned different 76mm guns

Did T-34 model 1943 had better 76mm gun than previous versions?

2) There was a story about 2 soviet T-34s killing Tigers by shooting at their tracks while Tiger was moving. Then when Tiger rotated side ways they could penetrate the armour. If my memory is correct Tiger had 80mm side armour - that makes the story hard to believe. Chances of penetration seem low.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Fetchez la Vache:

Noooooo! Then what would we be left with to argue about in the forums? Bren tripods probably...

Oh, the happy days of the steel panthers and being unable to penetrate T-34 from any direction with short 50cm gun.. No shortage of things to argue about then!

[Redwolf]

The KV-1 should probably be treated like the thick Churchill with 75mm gun in CMBO.

As for angles, place a Hetzer at an agle of 40 degrees (a bit more front than side) from a thin Churchill (80mm all around) and watch the hit chance.

[ September 04, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Claus B]

Originally posted by Stoffel:

Hi Mattias,

these captured guns were the M1936 and they were rebored to allow usage of the standard german 75mm AP ammo

it had a lower velocity than the Pak 40 and was heavier than the Pak 40,was renamed 7.62mmpak36®

I'm shure we agree, but just to clarify:

The 7,62mm PaK 36r did not fire "standard German 75mm AP ammo". The chamber was re-worked to allow the use of the 7,5cm PaK 40 cartridge case but the ammunition was 76.2mm caliber ammunition though of similar design to the 7,5cm PaK 40 rounds.

Claus B

[MikeyD]

I read a quote somewhere, a German general saying the Russian/German 76.2 Pak was the best overall anti-tank gun of the war. Yes, that statement surprised me too.

Yes, both CMBO and CMBB have alwaystaken angle and cant into consideration for penetration values. That's why it's so hard to win a penetration argument against the game engine. I recall having a Panther shell glance off my Sherman hull front (to my great surprise) at under 200m as it was backing away from the crest of a hill.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by killmore:

1) Since you mentioned different 76mm guns

Did T-34 model 1943 had better 76mm gun than previous versions?

No - it had the same gun and was pretty marginal by 1943.

2) There was a story about 2 soviet T-34s killing Tigers by shooting at their tracks while Tiger was moving. Then when Tiger rotated side ways they could penetrate the armour. If my memory is correct Tiger had 80mm side armour - that makes the story hard to believe. Chances of penetration seem low.

Do you have a questino in here??

The 76mm gun could penetrate the 80mm side armour at short range, adn if you can't kill hte damn thing from teh front then getting it to turn for yuo seems to be eminently snesible!! lol

Of course whether the turn was the intended result of shooting at the tracks or a happy accident (for the Russians!) is another story I reckon!!

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

The bursting charge of the APHE isn't so important - but the Russians used blunt nosed AP shells.

These gave better performance against slopped armour than sharp nosed shells, but were worse against armour they hit flat on - IIRC you'll see "flat nose" or something similar in the info screen for the tanks.

So how do you explain the fact that AP shells were less effective vs spaced vertical armour than equivalent single thickness vertical armour.</font>

[Tiger]

This book, "Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945, an illustrated reference", notes the KV-1S has the 76.2mm F-34 tank gun, and they list AP penetration as 69mm @ 500m and 61mm @ 1000m. What's intresting is next to this is the penetration for 'undercaliber shell' for the same gun, with penetration listed as 92mm @ 500m and 58mm @ 1000m.

I have an idea but anyone know anything about these undercaliber shells??

-john

[Guest Mike]

It's "T" rounds in CMBB parlance - APCR (Armour piercing composite rigid)/HVAP (High Velocity Armour Piercing), I think all German armour of teh same type had a single designation. Sometimes called "arrow shot" because of the shape.

Basically APDS but the "DS" part stays on instead of discarding - a light external sabot of aluminium and a heavy smaller penetrator of tungsten. The overall weight is lighter than a normal AP, so it gets to a higher velocity, and the tungsten if a great penetrator so the overall effect is for excellent penetration when it hits.

However the light weight and normal cross section (as opposed to the reduced cross section of APDS) result in a faster drop off in velocity too, so it's effect is rapidly lost with range.

[ September 04, 2002, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[Denizen]

It is a little known fact that the Pzr III was in some ways much more difficult to destroy than than the tank which ultimatley replaced it, the Panther. Many tank enthusiasts have erroneously underestimated the potential of the Pzr III in its final form, as certain modifications made to the tank late in its life were extraordinarily farsighted. The Spaced armor on the front hull and turret was indeed better at resisting the 122mm soviet APBC than the sloped armor of the panther's front. Soviet gun tests during and after the war would show that while the 122mm APBC could penetrate and travel all the way through the Panther from the front, it would barely harm the Pzr III. In fact numerous soviet militarily officials were suprised at the discontinuation of the Pzr III series in facvor of the Panther, since combat records indicated that the later variants of the Pzr III were still very much a threat to all exsisting soviet tanks by virtue of the spaced armor as well as the schurzen protection enveloping the hull and turret. Where availible, tungsten ammunition providied the 50mm gun of the Pzr III with all of the anti-armor performance of the Panther in a smaller, cheaper, and more efficient package. So please, before you question CMBB's modeling of the Pzr III, understand that the tank was certainly not cannon-fodder; in terms of overall performance and efficiency, it, and not the Panther, was perhaps the superlative AFV of the Axis forces, as realized by the Russians who fought them. Remember that modern day Leopard 2 uses the same protection principles pioneered by the Pzr III, while the technology of the more famous nazi AFVs fell from grace long ago

[ September 04, 2002, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ]

[killmore]

Originally posted by Denizen:

So please, before you question CMBB's modeling of the Pzr III, understand that the tank was certainly not cannon-fodder

Not really questioning BTS modeling - I was just very, very suprised.

I wanted to be educated better why it is so.

Can someone post penetration comparison of 76mm AT Gun and 76mm Gun of soviet tanks?

[ September 04, 2002, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: killmore ]

[killmore]

Found some numbers - T-34 and KV1 were getting better guns throught the war

L-11 guns then F-32 gun and then longer barreled F-34 gun (muzzle speed of about 660 m/s capable of piercing a 65mm thick plates at 30º on a 457 meters range).

Standard BR-350A round was capable to pierce 69mm of armor on the common battle range of 500 metres, later a new BR-350P round, capable to penetrate a 92 mm steel plate on the same range, was used.

KVs used L41,L42 guns (and in CMBB Demo)- no idea what their penetration was or whether they could use BR-350P round...

Anyone has more to share?

For details see http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/index.htm

(Main page is http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/index.htm)

[flamingknives]

I believe the ISU=122 and the ISU-152 were developed primarily as,what the russian's called "Animal hunter's"to engage the Panther and Tiger tank's

I don't think so - the ISUs were heavy assault guns - not tank destroyers. They just happened to be very good at it, with the 122 having an edge in terms of ammunition.

In addition, it's the SU 152 (distinct from the ISU) that is known as the Zveroboy or 'Animal Hunter' and the AP performance here is also incidental, not planned.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

[qb]The bursting charge of the APHE isn't so important - but the Russians used blunt nosed AP shells.

These gave better performance against slopped armour than sharp nosed shells, but were worse against armour they hit flat on - IIRC you'll see "flat nose" or something similar in the info screen for the tanks.

So how do you explain the fact that AP shells were less effective vs spaced vertical armour than equivalent single thickness vertical armour.</font>