shell demand for future updates

[siffo998]

while testing with some m4s and panzer IV i found out that the game actually makes no real difference in shell types. german tanks ingame have ap and he shells. the same goes for US tanks. maybe some of the later m10s have tungsten shells onboard but thats it.

if you look at the shermans alone there were m61 APC shells (some with and some without HE fill), M72 AP shells (only without HE fill) and m62 APCBC shells. All with different availability and penetration capabilities.

Wikipedia also mentions T30 Canister shot against infantry at short ranges but i have no clue how often these were used. In the same Wiki Source i`ve found this line:

"In practice the majority of M61 rounds were shipped without the explosive filler. " seems interesting because right now it seems like all the 75mm m3 ap shells ingame have HE fill.

sources:

http://www.friweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/75-mm.asp

http://www.tarrif.net/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6

for the german side the differenciation between panzergranate 39 and panzergranate 40 (had no HE fill) is lacking. right now the germans ingame only have panzergranate 39 onboard (according to the penetration results ingame).

panzergranate 40 was only available in very (very) low numbers but had an much higher penetration capability. for example at 100m distance the KWK40/L43 had 99mm with the pzgr39 and 126mm with pzgr40.

Source:

http://www.tarrif.net/

Ingame this shells could be well used especially at long range engagements were right now a Panzer IV/StuG III is not really able to penetrate a shermans upper frontal hull on a reliable base but with a pzgr40 he could.

[YankeeDog]

IIRC, past research posted here on the forums has suggested that PzGr. 40 and other German munitions containing Tungsten were extremely rare or nonexistent by mid-1944, as Tungsten supplies were constrained for Germany and all available stocks of the metal had to be reserved for other, more important purposes (amongst other things, Tungsten is a critical component for many metalworking machine tools).

[Sergei]

By 1944 Germans had an acute shortage of Tungsten (wolfram) that was needed for Pz.gr 40. Do you have any evidence that it was used in Normandy in any significant numbers, or even at all?

[siffo998]

actually just because it was rare in 1944 doesnt explain why it isnt modelled at all right now ! whats about the US shell differenciation ? right now there is only one type ingame but as far as i can see it makes a big difference in penetration and destruction ability if a m61 (with or without HE fill) or m72 shell (without HE fill) is fired.

[Boche]

IMO, there are more pressing matters to be looked than rare tungsten shells.

[Sergei]

actually just because it was rare in 1944 doesnt explain why it isnt modelled at all right now !

Can you show that even a single one Pz.gr 40 was fired in anger in 1944? In CMBB/CMAK the Tungsten round is available in 1943 but very rarely shows up, but in 1944 the choice disappears because it no longer was in use. If you can prove otherwise, great, let's see the evidence. Otherwise I would trust BFC on this one.

As for the US ammo question I don't know. The only thing I recall is that canister was very seldom used in the European theater, compared to PTO. Maybe it's because the Japanese didn't have Panzerfausts that could hurt your tank at the ranges where canister fire was the most effective...

[siffo998]

hm sorry maybe you did not get me right but my main concern was not that the germans have no tungsten rounds but that the americans used very different ap© shells for their 75mm m3 which are not modelled at all right now.

the german tungsten was just a thought that they could be modelled in further modules so that maybe a scenario designer could create a "what if" scenario or use them in very rare numbers in a scenario. also as far as i can see there were still large numbers of 5cm and 3,7cm tungsten rounds in use. so a PUMA or PAK 5cm with pzgr. 40 in 1944 would not be a nogo historically.

[YankeeDog]

actually just because it was rare in 1944 doesnt explain why it isnt modelled at all right now ! whats about the US shell differenciation ? right now there is only one type ingame but as far as i can see it makes a big difference in penetration and destruction ability if a m61 (with or without HE fill) or m72 shell (without HE fill) is fired.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: Everything I've read to date suggests that PzGr. 40 and other German munitions containing tungsten were functionally nonexistent by mid-1944. There might have been a few tungsten rounds floating around somewhere amongst German forces in Normandy? Sure. But unless you have new information to the contrary, as far as I know, any such vestigial stocks were far below levels that would suggest there is any need to model them in CMBN.

As for the American 75mm ammo, I don't have any information as to exactly what BFC is attempting to model in the game. However, given that the M72 75mm round was was mostly phased out by mid-1944, having been largely replaced by the M61, I think it's a safe guess that BFC modeling the M61 round in-game. In fact, the M61 was eventually replaced by the improved M61A1 before the end of the war, but I don't recall the exact date of this changeover, and in any event I don't think there was a huge difference in performance between the two.

The Wikipedia statement that M61 rounds were shipped without HE filler is intriguing, but also without citation... given the general unreliability of Wikipedia as a source, I would want further evidence of this before drawing any conclusions.

In any event, individual Sherman formations would almost certainly have one or the other; I don't think you would see a mix of types in the supply chain for a given formation, except in rare cases.

[siffo998]

In fact, the M61 was eventually replaced by the improved M61A1 before the end of the war, but I don't recall the exact date of this changeover, and in any event I don't think there was a huge difference in performance between the two.

hm as far as i can see there is quit a big difference between the two because... the m72 has no explosive charge and 88mm penetration at 100m distance (RHA armor) and 72mm (FHA armor). the m61 has´a explosive charge (maybe sometimes also not) and 77mm (RHA armor) and 76mm (FHA armor). all at 30° angle.

also theatre of war 2 cean module had both types of shells modelled for the british shermans so i do not think that m72s were obsolete in 1944.

[YankeeDog]

hm as far as i can see there is quit a big difference between the two because... the m72 has no explosive charge and 88mm penetration at 100m distance (RHA armor) and 72mm (FHA armor). the m61 has´a explosive charge (maybe sometimes also not) and 77mm (RHA armor) and 76mm (FHA armor). all at 30° angle.

also theatre of war 2 cean module had both types of shells modelled for the british shermans so i do not think that m72s were obsolete in 1944.

Sorry if I was unclear; I was trying to say that there isn't a large difference between the M61 and the M61A1. there was definitely a substantial difference between the M72 and the M61.

But I would not, in any event, consider ToW2 to be a very definitive source as to historical ammo availability. One insight into BFC's opinion on the matter may be how they did it in CMx1: they show Shermans firing M61 as early as 1942.

[Sergei]

I dug through some old posts by Charles. The problem is that no source gives any clear date for when the base fuse for the M61 was ready - a vague reference to "late in the war" is of little use for a game developer! But he believes that this was before the Normandy landings.

[Statisoris]

Can you show that even a single one Pz.gr 40 was fired in anger in 1944? In CMBB/CMAK the Tungsten round is available in 1943 but very rarely shows up, but in 1944 the choice disappears because it no longer was in use. If you can prove otherwise, great, let's see the evidence. Otherwise I would trust BFC on this one.

As for the US ammo question I don't know. The only thing I recall is that canister was very seldom used in the European theater, compared to PTO. Maybe it's because the Japanese didn't have Panzerfausts that could hurt your tank at the ranges where canister fire was the most effective...

I did some research on canister rounds a couple months back and found that the 37mm Stuart/M8 canister shot was used regularly in Normandy by some units. I could not find any info on 75mm canister. I do not have my sources at the moment but I recall that one source stated that in one unit, Stuart light tanks had ~70% canister shot loadouts.

[siffo998]

a quick search brought up this:

"American shells performed poorly against German tanks, particularly against the heavily armoured Panthers, Tigers and Königstigers. Many efforts were made to remedy the situation, but the older, less effective ammunition continued to be issued even as supplies of improved shells became available. It was not uncommon for vehicles to carry all the different types of shells in their racks at the same time. Unable to rely on just one type of A.P. shell to engage any potential ground target successfully, American tanks crews had to deal with the additional stress of selecting the proper shell for the job at hand."

http://www.miniatures.de/shells-american.html

another indication for the further use of m72 shells besides the m61 is that the m72 performs better against non face hardened armor than the m61.

[siffo998]

also i want to add that the americans used AP m70 shells (no He fill) and APC m86 shells (with He fill) for their 57mm AT gun.

right now ingame it seems like the shells fired by the 57mm AT gun always have explosive charges ! Also theres only one type available ingame... AP... but according to this data the AP shell (m70) is allways without HE fill.

source:

http://www.friweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns4.html

by the way the british 6 pounder (same calibre) only uses shells without HE.

[YankeeDog]

a quick search brought up this:

"American shells performed poorly against German tanks, particularly against the heavily armoured Panthers, Tigers and Königstigers. Many efforts were made to remedy the situation, but the older, less effective ammunition continued to be issued even as supplies of improved shells became available. It was not uncommon for vehicles to carry all the different types of shells in their racks at the same time. Unable to rely on just one type of A.P. shell to engage any potential ground target successfully, American tanks crews had to deal with the additional stress of selecting the proper shell for the job at hand."

http://www.miniatures.de/shells-american.html

another indication for the further use of m72 shells besides the m61 is that the m72 performs better against non face hardened armor than the m61.

I'd like to see what they're basing that assertion on.

Everything I have read indicates that the M72 was a stopgap design, deployed to get some kind of AP round for the 75mm gun, until the M61 shell was available in sufficient numbers. The M61 was actually already available by the time U.S. ground forces engaged in significant numbers for the first time, in 1942. As such, I can believe mixed M72/61 shell racks in 1942 and 1943 in North Africa and Sicily/Italy, but I am skeptical of significant amounts of M72 in 1944 in Normandy. Happy to be proven wrong, though...

[siffo998]

I'd like to see what they're basing that assertion on.

Everything I have read indicates that the M72 was a stopgap design, deployed to get some kind of AP round for the 75mm gun, until the M61 shell was available in sufficient numbers. The M61 was actually already available by the time U.S. ground forces engaged in significant numbers for the first time, in 1942. As such, I can believe mixed M72/61 shell racks in 1942 and 1943 in North Africa and Sicily/Italy, but I am skeptical of significant amounts of M72 in 1944 in Normandy. Happy to be proven wrong, though...

just for clarification... the last sentence from my post was taken from the penetration tables for the 75mm m3 out of this source:

http://www.tarrif.net/ (just browse the american equipment/vehicles and click on the m4) and not from the source above.

out of this table i can read that the m72 still had its use because it performes better against non face hardened armor at short distances (up to 500m).

by the way i hope you havent missed my post regarding the 57mm anti tank gun which also shows that there were multiple shells available for it for the americans (with and without HE fill and different penetration).

[Pak40]

Anyone interested in this subject should purchase THE AMERICAN ARSENAL

I have a copy at home but I'm at work right now, otherwise I'd help. Maybe later tonight I'll have some time.

[siffo998]

ok my sources also say that there are AP (solid, without He fill) and APC (with HE fill) for the sherman 76mm gun and the 76mm AT Gun.

the solid shot AP also has better penetration abilites than the APC until a range up to 500-1000m. (the same goes for the 75mm AP shell like i already showed in the posts before)

source:

http://www.friweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html

http://www.tarrif.net/

457m distance@30° 76mm m1a1 gun:

with AP m79: 109mm

with APC m62: 93mm

of course theres also the 76mm and 75mm tungsten HVAP (which is already modelled ingame right now at least for the m10 at august)

and also i want to add this interesting quote:

"A few rounds of the HVAP M93 APCR projectile were rushed to France in August 1944. Subsequently limited numbers were issued to troops as only 10,000 rounds were produced each month. The AP projectile was a solid shot round with no explosive filler."

source:

bottom of page http://www.friweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html which reffers to:

Chamberlain, Peter and Ellis, Chris: British and American Tanks of World War II and Hunnicutt, R. P.: Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank.

right now it seems like all the 76mm AP shells ingame are modelled as m62 shells with HE fill but according to this sources there were also shells without HE fill in use.

[Guest]

"In practice the majority of M61 rounds were shipped without the explosive filler. " seems interesting because right now it seems like all the 75mm m3 ap shells ingame have HE fill.

I'm wondering how you're drawing that conclusion. That isn't a dig, I'm genuinely curious.

[siffo998]

@phil:

well simply by testing it in a test scenario. for example if you put up a sherman 75mm against a tiger (not angled armor so most of the shells wont bounce of) all of the ap shells that i`ve seen either exploded on the ground (when missing the tiger) or exploding on the armor (when not bouncing of clearly), or bouncing of and exploding when hitting the ground again.

same goes for 76mm ap shells i`ve seen till now. it also is true for the 57mm anti tank gun.

a quick test from me showed the same explosion when using the m5s 37mm. at least when the ground near the tank is hit. because direct hits on the tiger will result allways in a far away bounce off with that 37mm shells.

also the only shell type mentioned in the ammo storage for the tanks is AP and HE. Theres no additional slot for APC shells. On the other hand as soon as the tungsten shells are available they are mentioned inside the ammo storage. so i think that theres only one type of AP ammo loaded when only one type is mentioned.

Maybe iam wrong and the explosion i see is not really a explosion but simply sand dust lifted from the ground by the impact. but that does not explain why the same dust is lifted when the AP shell "explodes" on the armor.

[Michael Emrys]

I would not always trust a graphic as a source of information. That you see apparent explosions is indeed suggestive, but not of itself conclusive. In other words, I for one would not base an argument on it alone.

Michael

[siffo998]

I would not always trust a graphic as a source of information. That you see apparent explosions is indeed suggestive, but not of itself conclusive. In other words, I for one would not base an argument on it alone.

Michael

well i`Ve also seen infantry dying from this explosions (bounced off shells) so i do not think that its just a sand dust !

[Michael Emrys]

well i`Ve also seen infantry dying from this explosions (bounced off shells) so i do not think that its just a sand dust !

Okay. That is an additional piece of evidence.

Michael

[liquidcactus]

................lol

[Guest]

@phil:

well simply by testing it in a test scenario. for example if you put up a sherman 75mm against a tiger (not angled armor so most of the shells wont bounce of) all of the ap shells that i`ve seen either exploded on the ground (when missing the tiger) or exploding on the armor (when not bouncing of clearly), or bouncing of and exploding when hitting the ground again.

same goes for 76mm ap shells i`ve seen till now. it also is true for the 57mm anti tank gun.

a quick test from me showed the same explosion when using the m5s 37mm. at least when the ground near the tank is hit. because direct hits on the tiger will result allways in a far away bounce off with that 37mm shells.

also the only shell type mentioned in the ammo storage for the tanks is AP and HE. Theres no additional slot for APC shells. On the other hand as soon as the tungsten shells are available they are mentioned inside the ammo storage. so i think that theres only one type of AP ammo loaded when only one type is mentioned.

Maybe iam wrong and the explosion i see is not really a explosion but simply sand dust lifted from the ground by the impact. but that does not explain why the same dust is lifted when the AP shell "explodes" on the armor.

Okay. The graphical effects should be relatively indicative. However, ammo load-outs can vary from what I've seen. My guess is if you loaded up a number of different types of 75mm Sherman and had them fire off their AP loads a few times you would note inert ammo in the mix.