K_Tiger Posted March 13, 2002 Share Posted March 13, 2002 R present in CM:BO?? Is it the 75mm L/37,5?? If yes, it seems the "Pop-Gun" is a bit overated. At 500 meters the penetration abillity must be around 66mm at 90 degree. Or "Achtung Panzer" is wrong, but i read this stats also on other sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankDawg Posted March 13, 2002 Share Posted March 13, 2002 i dont have the exact numbers at work, but over 15 different Shermans and guns are represented in CMBO. I of course am partial to the 76mm one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted March 13, 2002 Author Share Posted March 13, 2002 Hmm.. the 76mm is also a gun i do wonder about...the gun is with standard ammo a bit weaker as a german 75mm L/48 but with tungsten it has over 200mm penetrating rate unbelivable. I never found a WWII gun who could double his power by using tungsten ammo. If someone could point me to a site where i can see stats about US guns...or a statement from rexford would be enought for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 13, 2002 Share Posted March 13, 2002 There were two different AP shells for the 75mm US gun. CMBO models the average penetration of these two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted March 13, 2002 Author Share Posted March 13, 2002 Thx for the replay redwolf but how strong must the "best ammo" be?? If they took the "average" from both. Let us say 66mm for the worst ammo the better ones must around 112mm at 500 meters 90/0 degrees...to come to the 89mm you see in the game. Its again nearly the doubled pennetration effekt like the 76mm and tungsten cores (in the game) If you see the stats for the german ap ammo compared to the Pg. 40 (Tungsten/Wolfram) you cant see such a dramticaly improofment. Must be a wonderammo made by Mirakulix the US troops fielded... If you look at the stats about Ap and Tungsten ammo, you may see mostly up to 500m a penetration boost up to 50%..but not 100% like for the US ammo in the game. Im not sure you can even get out 50% of such a short barreled gun like the 75mm L/37,5. May someone with better knowlledge as i could clear up my mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 13, 2002 Share Posted March 13, 2002 Originally posted by K_Tiger: Thx for the replay redwolf but how strong must the "best ammo" be?? If they took the "average" from both. Rexford's book gives penetration at 100 meter between 109mm for AP and 88mm for APCBC. He gives a lower muzzle velocity of 654, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted March 13, 2002 Share Posted March 13, 2002 After having looked through John Salts compilation of armour penetration tables (dozens of printed sources) I'd say that CM's estimate of the 75 mm AP (M3 gun), 76 mm AP and 76 mm HVAP (all @ 30 degrees US) checks out with the sources presented there. The 75 mm M3 is not shortchanged in CM but on the other hand it's not overrated by more than 4 mm at 500 meters, say 6% tops. The regular 76 mm AP seems, if anything, to be underrated by a similar amount, many sources agree with CM though. -- M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted March 13, 2002 Share Posted March 13, 2002 Originally posted by K_Tiger: ...If you see the stats for the german ap ammo compared to the Pg. 40 (Tungsten/Wolfram) you cant see such a dramticaly improofment. Must be a wonderammo made by Mirakulix the US troops fielded... If you look at the stats about Ap and Tungsten ammo, you may see mostly up to 500m a penetration boost up to 50%..but not 100% like for the US ammo in the game. ... Without knowing the alloys composition it is almost impossible to know the answer to this... To many presumptions (would) have to be (made) done. Sources that can be dubious: 1- Test data... every one conducted tests in different conditions by that time (40's/ 50's) 2 - Calculation using weight, speed that "imagine" a composition/structure of the flying projectile… We need: US/German AP alloy composition US/German Wolfram alloy composition -Together with a good material analysis a good mathematical/physical model is also needed I'm peaty much sure CM uses the 2nd (at least it uses mechanical physics equations), as for the 1st... Maybe it's too hard to get the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted March 14, 2002 Share Posted March 14, 2002 Originally posted by Mattias: After having looked through John Salts compilation of armour penetration tables (dozens of printed sources) I'd say that CM's estimate of the 75 mm AP (M3 gun), 76 mm AP and 76 mm HVAP (all @ 30 degrees US) checks out with the sources presented there. [snips] M.Indeed. The source I consider the most trustworthy (the tables in Hunnicutt's "Sherman") give the folowing penetration figures for the 75mm M3 at 500 yards and 30 degrees: APC M61 against homogenous armour: 66mm APC M61 against face-hardened armour: 74mm AP M72 against homogenous armour: 76mm AP M72 against face-hardened armour: 66mm The figure given in CM:BO therefore seems entirely reasonable. All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 14, 2002 Share Posted March 14, 2002 Originally posted by John D Salt: The source I consider the most trustworthy (the tables in Hunnicutt's "Sherman") give the folowing penetration figures for the 75mm M3 at 500 yards and 30 degrees: APC M61 against homogenous armour: 66mm APC M61 against face-hardened armour: 74mm AP M72 against homogenous armour: 76mm AP M72 against face-hardened armour: 66mm The figure given in CM:BO therefore seems entirely reasonable. Especially considering that CMBO does not have a model for face-hardened or not armor, being right in the middle is probably the way to go. There are some situations where result are not historical like the shot at the back of a Tiger 1 turret by a 75mm Cromwell in Villers-Bocage which succeeds in CMBO but failed due to homogenous armor and APC. But the reason is not that BTS just inserted a wrong penetration number (it comes out of a formula anyway and only some are hand-tuned), the reason is that the game engine has no endless depth of detail. Just another instance where fiddling with numbers cannot fix game limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted March 14, 2002 Author Share Posted March 14, 2002 I agree, they couldn implement a detaildepth like in real, but im wondering all of the pro german things r excluded like better optics, small turning radius, ect.... Also they hade no problems to change the german armor quality in the last patch, without to know if only the frontal armor was from lower quality or the complete Tank. Rexford stated, mostly the Panthers hade 85mm frontalarmor, but did we see this?? This is discussed here to the end, but im now playing more often in the last time and some things made me still angry i see in the game. Not only pro US decissions, also the sniper Sdkfz. 209 with the 75mm gun, i killed more tanks with them as i lost true tanks. I hope CM:BB will be a bit better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted March 14, 2002 Share Posted March 14, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt: The source I consider the most trustworthy (the tables in Hunnicutt's "Sherman") give the folowing penetration figures for the 75mm M3 at 500 yards and 30 degrees: APC M61 against homogenous armour: 66mm APC M61 against face-hardened armour: 74mm AP M72 against homogenous armour: 76mm AP M72 against face-hardened armour: 66mm The figure given in CM:BO therefore seems entirely reasonable. Especially considering that CMBO does not have a model for face-hardened or not armor, being right in the middle is probably the way to go. There are some situations where result are not historical like the shot at the back of a Tiger 1 turret by a 75mm Cromwell in Villers-Bocage which succeeds in CMBO but failed due to homogenous armor and APC. But the reason is not that BTS just inserted a wrong penetration number (it comes out of a formula anyway and only some are hand-tuned), the reason is that the game engine has no endless depth of detail. Just another instance where fiddling with numbers cannot fix game limitations.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 14, 2002 Share Posted March 14, 2002 Originally posted by Bastables: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt: The source I consider the most trustworthy (the tables in Hunnicutt's "Sherman") give the folowing penetration figures for the 75mm M3 at 500 yards and 30 degrees: APC M61 against homogenous armour: 66mm APC M61 against face-hardened armour: 74mm AP M72 against homogenous armour: 76mm AP M72 against face-hardened armour: 66mm The figure given in CM:BO therefore seems entirely reasonable. Especially considering that CMBO does not have a model for face-hardened or not armor, being right in the middle is probably the way to go. There are some situations where result are not historical like the shot at the back of a Tiger 1 turret by a 75mm Cromwell in Villers-Bocage which succeeds in CMBO but failed due to homogenous armor and APC. But the reason is not that BTS just inserted a wrong penetration number (it comes out of a formula anyway and only some are hand-tuned), the reason is that the game engine has no endless depth of detail. Just another instance where fiddling with numbers cannot fix game limitations.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted March 15, 2002 Share Posted March 15, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: I don't think that you can really cite a single incident from the V-B battle as convincing evidence that the CM:BO penetration model is inaccurate. Armour penetration is, it is agreed by all informed commentators, a highly stochastic phenomenon. Wittman at V-B got lucky. Firing tests on a captive Tiger in Tunisia (reported in PRO document WO 185/118) showed that the 75mm M3 firing M61 amn could penetrate the hull side plates of the Tiger at normal impact at 800 yards; the turret side and rear armour is the same thickness. Some sources I have seen quote much better performance for the APCBC round of the British 75mm Mk V (though I've never been able to discover why this should be). If you flonk around the web I think you might be able to find the "kleeblatter" from the Tiger-Fiebel, and these will show a vulnerable area for the Tiger from the Sherman's 75mm gun at sides and rear. As for "game limitations", the CM:BO armour penetration model and the data collected to support it looks to me to be far the best job yet done anywhere in amateur wargaming, and unlikely to be significantly improved upon unless and until somebody fancies writing an amateur version of "Tank-kill". Certainly having 75mm rounds incapable of piercing a Tiger's sides and rear at close range would be a significant step backwards, and fail rather badly to be historically convincing. All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 15, 2002 Share Posted March 15, 2002 The most annoying U.S. gun anomaly is the 76mm penetrating the Tiger II turret front. Granted, CMBO doesn't exactly take place at ideal combat ranges for the Tiger II, but a front turret hit is highly unlikely... unless they're ALWAYS shooting through the coax mg hole! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts