Armor Penetration Snafu?

[JasonC]

"in reality the heavy tank formations were committed in larger, not smaller, numbers than regular tank units."

Sorry Redwolf, that was the doctrine but that was not the practice. Heavies were rarely employed as a full battalion, and you can read over and over their commanders bemoaning the undoctrinal practice of splitting them up to stiffen several other units, in companies, platoons, or even two-tank sections. People do not bemoan things that do not happen. Ordering Jagds not to be used *alone* should tell you that the tendency to split them up was very strong - commanders do not forbid things that no one would even think of.

Whereas vanilla tanks were regularly used in formations of 100-200 on the frontage of a single defending infantry regiment, when on the attac (full panzer corps attacked single divisions), and were rarely deployed in groups less than company strength. Sometimes depleted formations appeared in half-companies, but sending companies here or there was typically as "refined" as a regular Panzer commander got. SP guns were employed in smaller groups sometimes, 3 to 10 being typical.

The Russian practice, incidentally, broke the heavies up into formations of around 20 tanks, and some being under repair often reduced those to 10-15 runners. Whereas they sometimes employed medium tank fleets up into the hundreds in the case of spearheads, and 30-60 was the regular amount manipulated.

Also, on the subject of Panthers, it is an intermediate type. The Germans classified it as a medium to differentiate its employment - as part of regular panzer regiments in divisional level panzer units, rather than as independent battalions at corps or army level. And the side armor was thin - but that was equally true of the Jagdpanther and Brummbar, which were designated as "schwere" (heavy) and used in independent battalions. The Panther is as heavy a tank as the late Churchills, Sherman Jumbos, Pershings, IS-2s and ISUs - 45 tons. In any other WW II army it would have been considered a heavy tank. The Germans didn't because of how they deployed in, and because the Tigers were even heavier.

[Ari Maenpaa]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf hates artillery:

1) The choice here is cheap and at the lower boundary of reality or expensive and at the upper level. All I say is that I prefer the former. A middle price and random armour quality would be better, of course.<hr></blockquote>

I too would like to see a little more expensive Panther with random armor quality. That would be a perfect solution.

Anyway even the current brittle Panther is a nasty opponent on CM battlefield. From the gameplay's point of view, I agree, it's good to have a cheap Panther, because those Panzer IVs really are pathetic against the 37mm guns. Just got a painful reminder of that in a recent game

Still I can't help myself from hoping for a better armor quality modifier every time I lose a Panther to a frontal penetration

Btw. motivated by KEEF888's original post I decided to test the Sherman's 75mm gun against Panther's front armor. I was a bit surprised to discover that occassionally under 60 meters range the 75mm round could penetrate the lower hull armor without hitting a weak point. But that didn't happen regularly enough to be useful in the actual fighting. Nonetheless it is possible.

Ari

[KEEF888]

Just wanted to thank you all for the information! Also, could someone tell me the exact title of the book by Rexford, that has been mentioned? Thanks again.

[Andrew H.]

Here's a link to Rexford discussing his book. Rexford's book discussion.

IIRC from other Rex panther discussions, what he thought should be corrected in CM was not so much the quality of the Panther's glacis (I mean, he wanted it to be random averaging out to around 85%, not always 85%, but I don't think he had a particular problem with this number), but with the fact that the poor armor quality was only found in the glacis, and not in other armor on the tanks.

Given the thin Panther side armor, this would be important for CMBO. I'm not sure how important it is for CMBB, although having a better turret might be.

I'm not sure if BTS could do the "random" glacis quality thing before the engine rewrite anyway, but it could present certain problems for ladders and point games.

But it would still be kind of cool.

[TSword]

In CMBO the american 76 mm is clearly an uber gun.

I have made a testscenario where a Panther (without ammo) stands at 30° sideangle towards a M4A3 76 700 m away. The first hit on the lower Hullfront plate takes out the Panther with a normal APCBC round always.

If you read rexford and his book you know that this is not possible, maybe one out of 20 - 30 such shots would be succesful in penetrating but not always and consistently (or some rounds at the same spot).

HVAP/APDS Inacuracies are not there either of course, so shattergap.

And to the flawed Panther glacis, rexford clearly stated that there is some evidence that a certain still unkown percentage of Panther front glacis were flawed, but without any great benefits for 75 - 75 mm AT Shots.

So to set the Panther (and almost all other german tanks at 85 % armor quality) is more then questionable.

[Redwolf]

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

In CMBO the american 76 mm is clearly an uber gun.

<hr></blockquote>

It is? For me it looks pretty realistic, failing on Panthers (even weak CMBO variant) regularily from greater range. Realistic for 85% armor quality, of course.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I have made a testscenario where a Panther (without ammo) stands at 30° sideangle towards a M4A3 76 700 m away. The first hit on the lower Hullfront plate takes out the Panther with a normal APCBC round always.

If you read rexford and his book you know that this is not possible, maybe one out of 20 - 30 such shots would be succesful in penetrating but not always and consistently (or some rounds at the same spot).

<hr></blockquote>

The Panther's lower hull should resist 76mm shots? I guess I have to re-read these section.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

HVAP/APDS Inacuracies are not there either of course, so shattergap.

<hr></blockquote>

Where does rexfords book say the HVAP (76mm tungsteen) is inaccurate? I remember it for ADPS, but not for HVAP?

I remember rexfords book says the HVAP should have a worse performance on angled hits than APC or ADPS, that isn't modeled in CMBO and hurts Panthers and other angled German armor.

On the other hand, CMBO models the US 76mm weaker than the pure formula would make it, taking the projectile's tendency to break up into account.

Overall it seems to me that the "always 85% quality" is the only real problem here.

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I remember rexfords book says the HVAP should have a worse performance on angled hits than APC or ADPS, that isn't modeled in CMBO and hurts Panthers and other angled German armor.<hr></blockquote>

Look again at the in-game penetration stats for HVAP. It is modeled.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Look again at the in-game penetration stats for HVAP. It is modeled.<hr></blockquote>

In fact. One reason less to complain.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

In fact. One reason less to complain.<hr></blockquote>

Yep.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>TSword:

So to set the Panther (and almost all other german tanks at 85 % armor quality) is more then questionable.<hr></blockquote>

"Almost all other"??? A quick survey of German tanks in CMBO shows only the Panther, Jadgpanther and Hetzer with 85% armor.

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[Ari Maenpaa]

Still couple of thoughts concerning the Panther’s lower hull:

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

The Panther's lower hull should resist 76mm shots? I guess I have to re-read these section. <hr></blockquote>

I don’t have the book, but here’s an oldish quote from Rexford:

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

76 APCBC couldn't penetrate 60mm @ 55° beyond very short range.<hr></blockquote>

The missing 15% in quality makes quite a big difference for the lower hull plate. It is 60mm thick, but the 0.85 modifier makes the actual thickness 51mm. And about a year ago Charles gave the 55-degree CM data for the U.S. 76mm:

76mm vs. 55 degrees slope

100m = 59mm

500m = 55mm

1000 = 51mm

2000 = 43mm

A 100% quality lower hull plate (60mm) would still be weaker than a 85% glacis (68mm), but would stop Shermans making those odd feeling frontal penetrations from +1000 meters (disregarding penetrations through the shot trap). That would also be in harmony with Rexford’s data, if I have understood correctly.

Yeah yeah, hairsplitting maybe, but interesting nevertheless. Also the above applies to the Jagdpanther also.

Btw. IIRC sometime ago Rexford stated that Jagdpanther's front upper hull armor wasn't produced of the same plate than the Panther's (at least there was difference in hardness). We have had a lot of discussions about the P's armor, but is there any reports or test results specifically about the JP's armor resistance? Anything in the battle reports?

Ari

[TSword]

Thank you Ari

Don't forget 700 m and way beyond 60 ° because of 30 ° sideangle.

(I have no problem with occasional penetrations, since the shot could shear of the finaldrive or even penetrate BUT NOT ALWAYS, i did the test several times always with same result first lower frontplate hit at 30° sideangle = penetration)

[TSword]

Vanir_B

You're correct on the detail, that "only" all the Panther versions including Jagdpanther are on 85% armor quality, BUT ALL GERMAN armor beside PzIV G, Tiger IE, IE late have reduced armorquality ratings !!!!!!!!!!!!

Tiger IE mantlet is rated at 100+, but rexford stated that the mantlets important parts rate at 130 mm (Another small detail...)

[rune]

and what does 100+ mean? It means it is a variation between 100 and 130. the manlet varied and cmbo randomizes the armor if it hits in the manlet. So the problem is what?

Rune

[rune]

As for why tank armor after 1944 for the germans is at 85%, read the thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=023003

CMBO covers June 44-Mar 45, so maybe the majority of these tanks had armor that could have been at 75% - 100%, maybe lower? BTS went with the average of 85%.

Thanks to rexford and Jeff D. on the interesting thread. Seems even the experts can't agree.

Rune

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

You're correct on the detail, that "only" all the Panther versions including Jagdpanther are on 85% armor quality, BUT ALL GERMAN armor beside PzIV G, Tiger IE, IE late have reduced armorquality ratings !!!!!!!!!!!!<hr></blockquote>

Is this wrong for June 44-May 45?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>rune:

and what does 100+ mean? It means it is a variation between 100 and 130. the manlet varied and cmbo randomizes the armor if it hits in the manlet. So the problem is what?<hr></blockquote>

Actually, I believe it is a variation between 100mm and 200mm.

[rune]

I think you are right....

Rune

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

I just throw in some stats, I leave it up to you to give them sense.

Casualties of Panther (on all fronts together!!!):

Jan 44 : 130

Feb 44 : 127

Mar 44 : 19

Apr 44 : 247

May 44 : 117

Jun 44 : 138

Jul 44 : 373

Aug 44 : 290

Sep 44 : 692

Okt 44 : 294

Nov 44 : 133

Dec 44 : 243

Jan 45 : 252

(Further numbers are not available)

Taken from Thomas L. Jentz, Die deutsche Panzertruppe (issued in the US as 'Panzertruppen')

Just my five pence about realism & tanks in CM:

We should not forget that the 'typical' - especially QB - CM battle is a completly unrealistic situation, and a CM battle is IMO in general mostly unhistoric.

a) equal forces meet on the battlefield

air superiority, the most important thing in the late war, doesn't matter (not realy)

c) tanks didn't meet in close combat every day - and close combat for tanks means everything below 500m. Tank guns were not without reason build for lang range accuracy.

d) when a commander meet a superior force, he usually tends to retreat and call for support. This is not possible in CM, so casualties are always extraordinary. I'm pretty sure that the US had reconsidered their engagement if they had all the time casualties like on Omaha beach or in Huertgenwald.

[Redwolf]

The most unrealistic thing is CMBO is that the player seens everything, knows extact all ways to knock a tank out and can redirect any troop on the battlefield to do whatever has the best chance to kill the tank.

We are missing all the guys who stayed away from the tank, or didn't even know there is a tank, or could identify it as non-friendly. Even greep and conscript troops in CMBO behave like: OK guys we are one, none of us is an idividual, we'll kill that tank with whatever has best chances, then with what has second chance and so forth.

The troop quality only matters for the outcome after one selected group has been sent out - bad troops has a much lower chance on that level. On the game-wide level, CMBO forces behave like super-determined telephatic year-2025 US Marines in a training contest against some French cavalry guys.

[MikeyD]

Well, in low light conditions green troops have the tendency to see EVERY distant AFV as a Tiger and go to ground. So this offsets the communal 'Borg' consciousness somewhat.

I'm of the opinion that the U.S. 76mm has ALWAYS been downplayed in the literature in order to boost the 'monster Tiger' story. It's a hoot to read he old book 'Is Paris Burning' which portrays the dreaded 88 peeking out of every haystack west of the Seine.

That a 76mm Sherman can regularly kill a Panther at 'normal' CM ranges (500m+-) is compounded by the sloppy tactical use of the Panther much of the time (eg: fighting on open ground at under 200m, etc.)

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

We should not forget that the 'typical' - especially QB - CM battle is a completly unrealistic situation, and a CM battle is IMO in general mostly unhistoric.

a) equal forces meet on the battlefield

air superiority, the most important thing in the late war, doesn't matter (not realy)

c) tanks didn't meet in close combat every day - and close combat for tanks means everything below 500m. Tank guns were not without reason build for lang range accuracy.

d) when a commander meet a superior force, he usually tends to retreat and call for support. This is not possible in CM, so casualties are always extraordinary. I'm pretty sure that the US had reconsidered their engagement if they had all the time casualties like on Omaha beach or in Huertgenwald.<hr></blockquote>

Very true. I would add an e) Tanks in general were less common on the battlefield than in CM especially for the Germans.

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Very true. I would add an e) Tanks in general were less common on the battlefield than in CM especially for the Germans.

[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<hr></blockquote>

The average US Infantry Division had a battalion of medium tanks and a battalion of tank destroyers (later there might be a second battalion of either added). German infantry divisions where suppose to have at least a stug company, but rarely had this intact (a few formations had larger numbers of tanks, but they were more rare).

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

The most unrealistic thing is CMBO is that the player seens everything, knows extact all ways to knock a tank out and can redirect any troop on the battlefield to do whatever has the best chance to kill the tank.

We are missing all the guys who stayed away from the tank, or didn't even know there is a tank, or could identify it as non-friendly. Even greep and conscript troops in CMBO behave like: OK guys we are one, none of us is an idividual, we'll kill that tank with whatever has best chances, then with what has second chance and so forth.

The troop quality only matters for the outcome after one selected group has been sent out - bad troops has a much lower chance on that level. On the game-wide level, CMBO forces behave like super-determined telephatic year-2025 US Marines in a training contest against some French cavalry guys.<hr></blockquote>

Oh, yes, I have completly forgotten to mention the borg spotting!

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

When we are already talking about realism...

I read somewhere (don't nail me down on the facts) that the Russians had produced ~40.000 T34 of all types, bud the average lifetime of a T-34 were only ~7 days, while the Germans had only 30.000 PzIII (including StuG), PzIV, PzV, PzVI & PzVI KT together, bud the German losses were not so extreme.

This looks like: the Russians had high casualties, bud the Germans were simply outnumbered. The Russian loose more tanks per battle, but they still win. In general, the Russian casualties were extraordinary, as we all know. The only important thing were to succeed in the mission - casualties were secondary. Is this right?

If so: With the current way to calculate the CM victory (all I know about it), is this impossible. If both sides has equal casualties, the result will be a draw. If the Russian forces are cheaper to reflect their masses, the Germans has no chance - maybe German tanks are better (I mean things like Tiger vs T-34) but take one Tiger vs 5 T-34, and I assume the Tiger will be toasted most times (because of math, more shots = higher chance to hit = higher chance to damage/kill). I believe it was not so in reality, bud better ask an expert.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

The average US Infantry Division had a battalion of medium tanks and a battalion of tank destroyers (later there might be a second battalion of either added). German infantry divisions where suppose to have at least a stug company, but rarely had this intact (a few formations had larger numbers of tanks, but they were more rare).<hr></blockquote>

Yes, but my point is that almost every CM game you play has tanks in it. CM sized engagements with no tanks weren't uncommon in real life. They are in CM.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Yes, but my point is that almost every CM game you play has tanks in it. CM sized engagements with no tanks weren't uncommon in real life. They are in CM.<hr></blockquote>

But that was my point. If we fought a realistic balance for games, we would have lots of infantry vs infantry, a good number where the US have tanks and the Germans have nuthin, and some where both have tanks, and very few cases where German tanks fail to meet US tanks.