Armor modeling

[Marlow]

OK, bear with me on this one, it is a little off topic.

I was looking for info to show that a 76 could kill a Panther from close range, but I didn’t find much. One that did pop up was this:

In another encounter in the late afternoon some days later, Pool's platoon was skirting south of the town of Colombier, France when a German Panther rolled directly in front of the lead tank. It quickly got off two rounds, but the nervous enemy gunner missed both times. Before a third projectile could fly from the long, deadly looking 75mm barrel, Pool's gun barked and ripped the Panther turret from the hull. At that range, even the Sherman could be deadly!

Now I am not raising this to show that the 76 had a good chance against a Panther (hell, I'm not even sure it was a 76, or the German was a Panther), but it did happen. More importantly it led me to this:

Lafayette Pool

Lafayette G. Pool was born on July 23, 1919, on a farm in Odem, Texas. … He landed with his unit at Normandy in June, 1944. As an M4 "Sherman" Tank Commander in Company I, 3d Battalion, 32d Armored Regiment, he led his crew across France and Belgium and led his Task Force in 21 separate attacks. In 80 days he and his crew destroyed 258 German vehicles, captured 250 German soldiers, and killed an estimated over 1000 German soldiers. In his final battle SSG Pool was blow from the turret of his tank and his right leg was shattered and had to be removed…

I knew Lafe was America’s tank ace, but holy crap! 258 kills in a Sherman! Even if a lot of those were HTs and SP guns, it is still absolutely amazing. Wittman had nothing on this guy.

[rune]

Marlow,

How dare you bring actual accounts into that trolling. According to that troll, you are wrong. I supposed the accounts I read during the Bulge where the tds took out Panthers from the front were inaccurate too. Three seperate accounts so far I have read.

Let's look at the facts..something that trolls despise.

1. The Panther glacis debate is still not determined. Rexford and others will tell you they have sets of data that contradict each other.

2. If you read the thread [can trolls read?] it was stated that the armor was baed due to a conversation with Livingston. That was all that was available when CMBO was relased. Oh gee, that was posted at least 3 times in the thread.

3. It has been told again and again that CMBO models the manlet of the Tiger as 100+ mm, variable from 100 to 300mm. Remeber the actual manlet drawing and rexford states 300mm might actually be too much?

4. German artillery is slower? Maybe it was due to their practice. Lets look at what a miniature game system states:

http://www.fireandfury.com/artillerytutorial/artygermans.shtml

Gee, delays up to 12 minutes. Luckliy BTS has never depended on another game system, and tries to get things right. Doesn't always succeed, but name me a better game.

5. Uber .50 cal. Hmm...Having actually gotten to fire one during training, and the bullet went literraly through a brick building...what is your point?

6. Optics interpreted low. Where? All optics are treated the same, mainly due to the lack of a definable percentage. There is a great WO study where the British tank crews use a german sight and claim it is better, then the scientists come in and say there is little to no difference. Who do you believe? How do you model this?

7. Turret speed was the average across the board. Yes, if I was revving the engine at a higher rpm i might be able to turn the turret faster, but give me the doctrine where the higher rpm [more wear on the engine]was standard practice.

8. More ammo for the US halftrack. Show me the ammo loads carried. you don't know but then complain about it?

9. It annoys a lot of people. BS! The majority think the game is great, perfect, no, but better then anything out there.

10. Oh yeah, the 20mm cannon. I actually have to agree...but I know Steve and Charles know about it.

Rune

[ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: rune ]</p>

[Andreas]

Oh yeah Rune, is that so, with your so-called facts? Now what I want to know, how good can a game be that does not include the Spanish Blue Division? And where is it in CMBO I ask you?

We all expected the Spanish Blue Division!

German artillery delays - before trolling on about them, it would behove one to exhibit a basic understanding of different artillery practices. Whether both sides had radios is only part of the equation after all. Or let's take real life, shall we? According to my grandfather, a German counter battery observer in WW2, the time to get the computations resolved could be anything between 1 to 15 mins. He did that job for about 5 years outside Leningrad and elsewhere.

Fact is, the Germans never had an artillery system that could take on either the Royal Artillery or the US artillery in response time and weight on targets, or the Red Army in weight of barrages. They did not have the number of guns, the ammo, the mobility, the flexible command system, and probably not even enough batteries for their radios by 1944. Also, the practice of using their artillery soldiers as Alarmreserve to plug breakthroughs combined with a much better counter battery fire got a good number of them killed in the process, leading to a lower training level than in either the Royal Artillery or the US artillery, where the gunners led reasonably sheltered lives.

[Andreas]

Oh yes - Mr Kane, welcome. Your wife has no idea that she has presented you with the equivalent of a long-legged busty blondine mistress

Marlow - I hardly think that a comparison of 258 vehicles vs. 130 or so tank kills is fair. I have no idea how many vehicles Wittmann killed, but I would expect it to be quite a few. Also, as I understand, trucks and AT guns were considered prime targets in the east, if not by the tankers, but by the guys understanding logistics. I don't think these comparisons are very meaningful anyway.

[Marlow]

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

Marlow - I hardly think that a comparison of 258 vehicles vs. 130 or so tank kills is fair. I have no idea how many vehicles Wittmann killed, but I would expect it to be quite a few. Also, as I understand, trucks and AT guns were considered prime targets in the east, if not by the tankers, but by the guys understanding logistics. I don't think these comparisons are very meaningful anyway.<hr></blockquote>

Oh, I probably agree that a comparison is silly, but I was just astonished that a Sherman crew could rack up those kind of numbers, in 80 days of combat. BTW, Other sources did say that it was "armored vehicles" and stated that he knocked out a fair number of "heavy weapons" as well.

[Battlefront.com]

TSword:

Ignoring the rest of your rather pointless rant...

BUT why then lower the Panther to 85 % quality, while knowing that shatter gap is also not modelled in the game ?

Besides the fact that this has been explained SO many times it makes my head hurt, who says shatter gap is not modelled in CMBO? Like so many of your rantings and ravings, you are simply dead wrong. Shatter gap IS simulated. Man... where DO you get your facts from?

It's a pattern recognizable and annoys a lot of people i know playing CM

Judging by your ability to separate fact from fiction displayed thus far, I don't put much weight in this statement. And what "annoys" people is none of our concern if, on balance, the game is right and they are wrong. Otherwise we would be fretting day and night about all those players that are "annoyed" when they lose their King Tigers at 100m to a flank shot from a Sherman.

OK, I think due to this and another post by TSword today it is time to inform him that we are no longer willing to put up with trolling. Therefore, I will post our definition as found in the new BBS Agreement:

4. The act of "Trolling" is prohibited on this BBS. Trolling is defined as someone who routinely, although not necessarily exclusively, posts inflammatory, untrue, and/or generally useless statements with the primary motivation of insulting, demeaning, and in general causing disharmony within the BBS. Trolls often refrain from challenges to their flimsy arguments (when they even manage that much!) and fail to post rational follow ups to well thought out responses. This shows that the person is both a "mental midget" and a coward and does not offer anything of value to this BBS, the games being discussed here, or the community built up around them.

If TSword doesn't understand that he is precariously close to fitting this definition (I'm being generous), then I suggest he do Search on his posts and see how many fit this description. That is exactly what I will do next time I see a Troll post from him. I have a gut feeling what an audit will show.

If you got something to say, do it right (i.e. rational, respectful, backed up with facts, etc.). If you haven't a clue how to do that, then don't say anything at all and the entire BBS will be better off for it.

Marlow,

Remember that most accounts of tank duels are rather spotting in terms of fine details. Some accounts are detailed but questionable (i.e. knocking out a "Tiger" when none were anywhere near the area). I can only recall one KO of a Panther from the front, which was done by a 57mm AT Gun at VERY close range. Got a lucky hit near the ball mounted MG. I also saw a Panther with a neat hole in its galcis supposedly from a T-34/85. IIRC the particular matchup should not have yielded such a result.

So far we have based our research into this effect mostly on test reports and facts known about general problems within the 3rd Reich at the time. Same is being done for the Soviets. If we didn't think the evidence was strong we wouldn't be simulating it. So agree or disagree, at least we are doing our best to do the "right thing".

Steve

[rune]

Andreas,

I knew the German Artillery would bring you out. How dare you assume your grandfathers experience be correct against someone's guesses.

LOL...trying to get me in more trouble with the troops that Fransico Franco sent to the East Front that was named after the color of the sky.

Oh yeah, email to you enroute...

Rune

[JasonC]

There may well be trolling going on in this thread, but I for one did not see it in TS's comments. A rant surely, and I don't agree with him, but not trolling. I provide some answers to his particular issues.

HT ammo loads - the SPW MG has a German MG's ROF, higher than US MGs. It has 57 CM shots not 40 as he stated. Each represent 40 rounds carried, which is a 2-second burst from ~1200 rpm cyclic rate German MGs. The US HTs are using lower ROF MGs with cyclic rates of 450-550 rpm. US MGs have lower firepower as a result, even with each CM shot representing a longer 3-second burst, thus 25 rounds. The ammo totals CM uses are accurate for those rounds-per-shot. The standard load of a US M3 MT with only the 1 30 cal was 4000 rounds, thus the 160 shots that type gets. The M3A1 has the second MG of course, and a larger ammo load to go with it.

On US 76mms KOing Panthers from the front, it most certainly did happen, and not just in test firing at already fractured plate. It happened in combat, at short enough ranges. Examples are multiple kills scored by US M-10s defeating Panzer Lehr's July counterattack in Normandy, in head on confrontations at around 200 yards range along the sunken lanes (bringing a comment from the German commander of Lehr about the vunerability of Panthers on the attack in hedgerow country, BTW), and US M-18s clobbering large numbers of Panthers in surprise head on clashes in fog, around Arracourt in September, again at ranges under 250 yards. Most turned out to be "whoever shoots first" affairs, and the open-topped US TDs often won due to the sighting differential.

Do we know it was the upper front hull penetrated in these cases? No, and turret penetrations are more likely. Lower hulls are also possible, but much less likely. CM accurately models this vunerability, allowing US 76mm AP to KO Panthers through the turret front at close enough range. It also, however, does model the shatter gap effect at longer ranges, where you will generally see "shell broke up" results when US 76mms get hits on Panther turret fronts with plain AP at medium range.

Incidentally, no other wargame I've ever seen, board or computer, modeled such effects with that kind of discrimination. As for comments by veteran US tankers that they really wanted 90mm guns to duel with Panthers, that is accurate too and perfectly compatible with the above results. Tankers don't like having to close to 250 yards frontally, or get a flank shot, when the enemy can peg them at 2 km from any angle, weather and terrain permitting.

Incidentally, as an aside on tank dueling ranges, some seem to be under the impression that long range duels were the norm except in special conditions in western Europe. That does not seem to me to be accurate, from the many combat reports and studies I've seen. In North Africa, most tank duels took place between 500 and 1000 yards, despite the flat terrain. It was hard enough to hit things, especially moving things in dust and heat haze, that very long range engagements - while undoubtedly attempted - were rarely ended at longer range.

Even on the Russian steppe the fights often opened at 1000 yards or less, and sometimes did not end until ranges had fallen to a few hundred meters. There were exceptional "aces" who regularly got kills at longer ranges in Russia, practically free from reply as a result of it. But they were outliers in achieved accuracy terms, not the normal performance of every line tanker.

Oh, and on the issue of German artillery speed, you have to remember that the CM delay includes the spotting rounds and adjustment from them. More accurate placement of the first spotting round thus realistically results in a shorter delay, because there will be one less adjustment before the fire for effect order.

Just a few answers to some of the concerns the fellow raised, for whatever they are worth.

[ January 29, 2002, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by JasonC:

... Examples are multiple kills scored by US M-10s defeating Panzer Lehr's July counterattack ... and US M-18s clobbering large numbers of Panthers in surprise head on clashes in fog, around Arracourt in September ... Most turned out to be "whoever shoots first" affairs, and the open-topped US TDs often won due to the sighting differential...

Sort of o/t but something which occurs to me: in addition to having better visibility, I would imagne that US TD crews were better able to hear what was going on around them, due again to the lack of a lid on their vehicles.

I'm not saying that TDs were especially quiet, or that their hearing was as capable as the infantry, just that it would have been better than in a fully enclosed tank. Maybe.

Regards

JonS

[JasonC]

With the motor running, I wouldn't try to carry on a conversation with a passing infantryman. But better able to hear a dozen 45-ton metal monsters clanking toward you? I don't doubt it at all. It probably comes down to open topped vs. roofed, but especially vs. buttoned. How much of that is sighting and how much hearing probably varied from case to case, but overall situational awareness just has to be better unbuttoned.

It is worth noting that in both cases (Lehr July and Arracourt September) the Germans were trying to attack into the US defended zone. The TDs typically did not have any tactical warning that something was coming, but they knew overall that their unit was under attack by tanks (that is part of why they were there, up front - TD doctrine). And the German tankers were more likely to be buttoned, driving into the US defended zone.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by Marlow:

OK, bear with me on this one, it is a little off topic.

I was looking for info to show that a 76 could kill a Panther from close range, but I didn’t find much. One that did pop up was this:

In another encounter in the late afternoon some days later, Pool's platoon was skirting south of the town of Colombier, France when a German Panther rolled directly in front of the lead tank. It quickly got off two rounds, but the nervous enemy gunner missed both times. Before a third projectile could fly from the long, deadly looking 75mm barrel, Pool's gun barked and ripped the Panther turret from the hull. At that range, even the Sherman could be deadly!

Now I am not raising this to show that the 76 had a good chance against a Panther (hell, I'm not even sure it was a 76, or the German was a Panther), but it did happen. More importantly it led me to this:

Lafayette Pool

Lafayette G. Pool was born on July 23, 1919, on a farm in Odem, Texas. … He landed with his unit at Normandy in June, 1944. As an M4 "Sherman" Tank Commander in Company I, 3d Battalion, 32d Armored Regiment, he led his crew across France and Belgium and led his Task Force in 21 separate attacks. In 80 days he and his crew destroyed 258 German vehicles, captured 250 German soldiers, and killed an estimated over 1000 German soldiers. In his final battle SSG Pool was blow from the turret of his tank and his right leg was shattered and had to be removed…

I knew Lafe was America’s tank ace, but holy crap! 258 kills in a Sherman! Even if a lot of those were HTs and SP guns, it is still absolutely amazing. Wittman had nothing on this guy.

On the contrary, Whittman had alot on this guy....

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Marlow,

Remember that most accounts of tank duels are rather spotting in terms of fine details. Some accounts are detailed but questionable (i.e. knocking out a "Tiger" when none were anywhere near the area). I can only recall one KO of a Panther from the front, which was done by a 57mm AT Gun at VERY close range. Got a lucky hit near the ball mounted MG. I also saw a Panther with a neat hole in its galcis supposedly from a T-34/85. IIRC the particular matchup should not have yielded such a result.

So far we have based our research into this effect mostly on test reports and facts known about general problems within the 3rd Reich at the time. Same is being done for the Soviets. If we didn't think the evidence was strong we wouldn't be simulating it. So agree or disagree, at least we are doing our best to do the "right thing".

Steve

Steve,

I don’t disagree. You’ll note in my post that I state that I have no idea if the tank Ko’ed by Pool was a Panther or not (could have been a MarkIV for all I know). That was just by way of introduction to the little historical blurb about the U.S. tank ace, which maybe didn’t fit this discussion (off topic, Bad Marlow, Bad).

I am not an armor penetration grog, being personally more interested in infantry stuff, so I really don’t have much basis for judging the Panther’s armor modeling. In any event, as far as my game experience goes, the current modeling seems to work, as whenever I spot a Panther I get that historically accurate “oh crap” feeling.

Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

Pttthhhhbbbttttt.

[ January 30, 2002, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[Battlefront.com]

Jason,

Rants like TSword did on the previous page are of no value since they aren't backed up nor are they designed to be "constructive". Each one is close to fitting the definition of Trolling (as I posted above), but they also add up to a pattern of behavior which no individual post demonstrates. And as you, and others, have pointed out... much of the content of his rants are inaccurate from a historical point, and TOTALLY inaccurate in terms of how CM works (i.e. shatter gap, ammo count, etc.). So it is the pattern of behavior here that is of concern to us. Thanks for the informative answers in any case

Marlow, I know we aren't in disagreement In fact, I posted that to support your trouble finding anecdotal evidence of Panther glacis penetrations. If we modled everything in CM based on what is, or is not, in historical accounts CM would be a farse from a simulation standpoint. Historical accounts are VERY important, but they are not in and of themselves the most important thing to pay attention to.

Steve

[ January 30, 2002, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]