What is the exact defination of the"weapon mount" and "turret front"?

[Erwin.Rommel]

During my little test,I place a hull down panther to be shot by M4A3 76(W),The range is about 200m.For anyone who familar with WW2 guns and Armors,they know the 76mm APCBC can easily penetrate at least half the area of the curved mantlet of the Panther,however during my repeatly test,when the 76mm APCBC hit the"weapon mount" the hit laber kept showing no penetration ,and all the penetration appear at the "turret front",as we all know the panther's mantlet cover most of the turret front and there is no armor behind the mantlet,So my question is what is the exact meaning of the"weapon mount" in CMBN ?"weapon mount"=mantlet? If so,how can panther's mantlet almost completely resists the 76mm APCBC?I never saw this happen in the CMX1.then what is "turret front"mean?Does it mean the two triangle area of the panther's turret front armor that not covered by the mantlet?

Second,During tank vs tank in CMBN,it seems that even at very close range,the round randomly hit the different area of the of the target generally around the mass center of the target,I remember steve said in CMX1 and CMX2,the AI aim at the mass center of their targets.then is it possible to add an tactic AI that the AI gunner deliberately aim at the weak place of the target at very close range for those veteran/crack/elite crews?For example the M4A3(76)W aim at the relatively weaker turret Armor but not the creepy upper hull front.

[gunnergoz]

I suspect it is easier to write about targeting weak points in the middle of a tank battle, than to accomplish in real life.

[ShakyJake]

I believe "weapon mount" here refers to the entire weapon system, including the barrel, but not necessarily the mantlet. So in your case my guess would be that shots are hitting the barrel and bursting, knocking the gun out, but failing to continue and penetrate the turret. And based on the discussion talking about exactly your suggestion that the TacAI allow fine-aiming to target weaker areas, I think you'll find them rather unswayed on that point. They seem to have their minds quite made up about firing center mass.

[Erwin.Rommel]

the"weapon mount" definitely does not including the whole weapon system.the gun has its own hit laber named"weapon"

[Nidan1]

Perhaps the term "weapon mount" is referring to cupola mounted MGs on tanks, and similar hardware on SPWs and tracked AT weapons.

[Erwin.Rommel]

Well,No one is interested in this?I just try the Tiger.All the penatrations appear at the turret front too,all hits at weapon mount with no effect.As we know for the tiger,the mantlet cover almost all the area of the turret front(the tiger's mantlet is very special, the mentlet and the turret front armor overlap at most of the area).Then how the incoming round hit the turret front armor?Does the"turret front" really mean the turret front armor that not covered by the mantlet?

[ShakyJake]

Well, after creating my own little test scenario and having at it, I agree that "weapon mount" is a hit to the mantlet. Hits to the "front turret" are considerably more rare, but there is some area showing from the front under and to the sides of the mantlet that can be hit and penetrated. When I used a 20x zoom "over the shoulder" of the 76mm Sherman, it was actually pretty easy to see precisely when these spots were getting hit.

I'll also say that I was running into the same problem. Despite loading a scenario with a number of target tanks and 76mm Shermans, any hits on the weapon mantlet (at 200m to recreate your own woes) failed to penetrate. Against a 100mm cast turret (equivalent to about 95mm of RHA), this works out to be equal to the calculated penetration of the M62 round at 30° and 250m. Barring any lateral angle, approximately half of the mantlet's aspect would give this 30° angle or less, so I really expected to see at least some partial penetrations there.

Then again, I've seen a few sources that also say this mantlet was more than 100mm, some even going as high as 120mm. This would change the scenario a bit, as in the above case penetration was rather close to begin with. In any case, your idea of the penetration being made "easily" goes right out the window, and if the mantlet is indeed as much as 120mm thick, I guess it fits the ballistics for it to resist even a 76mm APCBC at such short range.

[Erwin.Rommel]

Then again, I've seen a few sources that also say this mantlet was more than 100mm, some even going as high as 120mm. This would change the scenario a bit, as in the above case penetration was rather close to begin with. In any case, your idea of the penetration being made "easily" goes right out the window, and if the mantlet is indeed as much as 120mm thick, I guess it fits the ballistics for it to resist even a 76mm APCBC at such short range.

The panther's mantlet is 100mm/curve and never change during the war

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/german_turret7.html

[ShakyJake]

According to some sources, sure. But then, GvA gives 100mm as the thickness of the the Tiger's mantlet, too, and there've been core measurements made since showing it to be around 120mm or more in many spots. Separate case, I know, but it's a possibility that could explain this.

[Erwin.Rommel]

According to some sources, sure. But then, GvA gives 100mm as the thickness of the the Tiger's mantlet, too, and there've been core measurements made since showing it to be around 120mm or more in many spots. Separate case, I know, but it's a possibility that could explain this.

For the front protection of the tiger,it is anther story,because the tiger's mantlet is very special,it is completely different from the panther,its 100mm mantlet and turret front armor overlap at most of the area.as a result,the tiger turret front protection is range from 100mm to 200mm,most area is about 200mm,for the panther,there is no armor behind the mantlet,so the protection is just 100mm/curve.

So,during the ww2,an hull downed tiger is a very horrific enemy for any allied or soviet tank.

[Bastables]

The panther's mantlet is 100mm/curve and never change during the war

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/german_turret7.html

The Panthers turret was changed during 1943/44 which is why you have the Ausf A model, CM represents this by having if the manual is correct Ausf D has 100mm mantlet, ausf A 110mm mantlet. The ausf G "Chin" introduced on the later to counter act bounces was about 120mm. ausf G was originally a hull change with ausf A turret.

I don't know what hit on the weapon mount represents in game.

[ShakyJake]

The Panthers turret was changed during 1943/44 which is why you have the Ausf A model, CM represents this by having if the manual is correct Ausf D has 100mm mantlet, ausf A 110mm mantlet. The "Chin" introduced on the ausf G was about 120mm. ausf G was originally a hull change with ausf A turret.

That's good to know, and certainly something I didn't know before. Thank you.

For the front protection of the tiger,it is anther story,because the tiger's mantlet is very special,it is completely different from the panther,its 100mm mantlet and turret front armor overlap at most of the area.as a result,the tiger turret front protection is range from 100mm to 200mm,most area is about 200mm,for the panther,there is no armor behind the mantlet,so the protection is just 100mm/curve.

So,during the ww2,an hull downed tiger is a very horrific enemy for any allied or soviet tank.

This might be getting a bit off-point and just a correction, but the additional protection I'm speaking of on the Tiger mantlet does not come from the overlap of mantlet and front turret armor. It was a complex shape, and some sections of the mantlet itself were simply thicker than the 100mm figure (sometimes much thicker). There were also 100mm sections, as well as the areas in front of the trunions which seem to have been 90mm. The point I was trying to make is that sometimes these books tend to pull a single value for armor thickness based on an average, since some structures might be too complex to list individually. I'm not saying that's the case with the Panther (and Bastables seems to have a very good explanation here anyway), but offering this up as a suggestion.

[Erwin.Rommel]

The Panthers turret was changed during 1943/44 which is why you have the Ausf A model, CM represents this by having if the manual is correct Ausf D has 100mm mantlet, ausf A 110mm mantlet. The ausf G "Chin" introduced on the later to counter act bounces was about 120mm. ausf G was originally a hull change with ausf A turret.

I don't know what hit on the weapon mount represents in game.

You can check the CMAK or CMBB,all the panther has the same 100mm/curve mantlet,the statements from some materials that said it changes from 100mm to 110mm refer to the "turret front" not the "mantlet"

[Bastables]

You can check the CMAK or CMBB,all the panther has the same 100mm/curve mantlet,the statements from some materials that said it changes from 100mm to 110mm refer to the "turret front" not the "mantlet"

Or I can go to the docs that Jentz has or actully measure the Panther ausf A in Saumr tank museum that has a working Panther Ausf a (during the 90s) which has a Mantlet at it's thickest 110mm.

[Erwin.Rommel]

That's good to know, and certainly something I didn't know before. Thank you.

This might be getting a bit off-point and just a correction, but the additional protection I'm speaking of on the Tiger mantlet does not come from the overlap of mantlet and front turret armor. It was a complex shape, and some sections of the mantlet itself were simply thicker than the 100mm figure (sometimes much thicker). There were also 100mm sections, as well as the areas in front of the trunions which seem to have been 90mm. The point I was trying to make is that sometimes these books tend to pull a single value for armor thickness based on an average, since some structures might be too complex to list individually. I'm not saying that's the case with the Panther (and Bastables seems to have a very good explanation here anyway), but offering this up as a suggestion.

After lots of tests,I found that for the tank(with turret),the hit laber will never show the weapon mount being penetrated even I used the German PAK43 to attack the panther's turret which is almost sure to penetrate(during this test all the PAK43's round hitting the turret is penetration but all shows"turret front penetration"),my best guess is that the hit laber in the CMBN only show the last hit area of the target vehicle,So if the round penetrate the mantlet then into the turret,it only show the last hitting place:the "turret front penetrated",in fact "turret front penetrated"in CMBN="weapon mount penetrated+turret front penetrate",I have another evidence that support my guess is during one of my tests when an imcoming round hit the panther's upper hull front and ricochet to the weapon mounted,the hit laber only shows"hit weapon mount"which is the last place be hit but not including the "hit upper hull front"

[Erwin.Rommel]

Or I can go to the docs that Jentz has or actully measure the Panther ausf A in Saumr tank museum that has a working Panther Ausf a (during the 90s) which has a Mantlet at it's thickest 110mm.

Well,it is sure that there are many different claims.what I mean is at least in the CMAK and CMBB,the BFC adopt the "100mm/curved mantlet"version.

[Bastables]

Well,it is sure that there are many different claims.what I mean is at least in the CMAK and CMBB,the BFC adopt the "100mm/curved mantlet"version.

CMBN manual has ausf A at 110mm ausf D at 100mm. They seem to have changed their sources since CMBB and CMAK.

[Erwin.Rommel]

CMBN manual has ausf A at 110mm ausf D at 100mm. They seem to have changed their sources since CMBB and CMAK.

I know that and another armor change or correction from the CMBB and CMAK is that the lower hull front armor of the ausf G is reduced to 50mm/55. I absolutely believe the expertise of BFC in these aspects.

It seems that the 110mm of the ausf A in the manual means the turret front armor,I extract the improvement of the A from D in the CMBN manual as follows:

1.improved turret traverse speed

2.improved commander's cupola

3.Adds periscope for the loader

4.110mm "turret front Armor"(ausf D is 100mm) **

5.upper hull front is no longer face-hardened

6.Armor:15-120mm(0.5-4.7in) this data makes me guess that the mantlet thickness that BFC used in the CMBN is 120mm