Jump to content

Panthera

Members
  • Content Count

    901
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

449 Excellent

About Panthera

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

977 profile views
  1. 4 is fine yes, although I think 5 data points at 3 different angles would be perfect, but the 4 CM ones are fine and the distances too. 2 km is very far, but when the terrain allowed it the Germans liked engaging even at that range and sometimes beyond (IIRC an Allied AAR mentions a couple of Shermans lit up at 3000+ yards by a Tiger in Belgium or Holland), knowing their better sights and generally flatter shooting guns gave them a big advantage here, reducing the risk of deadly return fire. The ranges I'd prefer would be 100/500/1000/1500/2000m @ 0/30/60 deg. That would be perfect IMHO.
  2. Mixed them up? You exclaimed "you have never played any of the Combat Mission games, because they have never, ever provided penetration charts for any of their titles", when infact I was playing CM way before you, and they did provide very detailed penetration charts for their vehicles.
  3. So, here is the type of unit cards provided in CM3 AK: As you can see a very detailed penetration chart is provided, and this goes for the main armament of all the vehicles ingame. A similar unit info card, and esp. the penetration chart, is what I think is needed for IL2 Tank Crew.
  4. Combat Mission 2 & 3 are the ones I played the most, and they provide a very detailed penetration chart. I will reinstall the game tomorrow when I get home and show you.
  5. On the contrary I have all the combat mission titles, and you are severely mistaken. CM provided each gun (even small arms) with a penetration chart you could open up ingame. You can't have played it much if you didnt even discover these. CM even went as far as to provide a mode with detailed descriptions of the damage dealt after every penetration, and wether or not it was a partial or complete penetration. Spalling from non penetrating hits was even simulated. I really cherish this series exactly for the detail in which they modelled the interaction between guns & armor, and their transparency in regards to the numbers & sources used, not to mention the ability have a clear listing of damage dealt after each hit if you so desired. It's one of the main reasons CM ever became so popular if you ask me.
  6. Every tank sim (both first person as well as tactical) I have ever tried provided a penetration chart for every round featured, and they provided these charts freely. No trade secrets were ever revealed as a result as they never shared how their system was coded, only how closely it matched the sources they had chosen to rely upon. They do this realizing that for a tank sim penetration data is as (if not more) important as engine, speed & climb rate data is for a flight sim, the guns vs armor aspect being perhaps the biggest subject of debate among AFV enthusiasts and a major part of how the vehicles are seen as stacking up on a tactical level. Therefore the developers of tank sims should, and usually do, provide penetration charts as a reassurance to players of how faithful to real life measured performance the sim is in this respect. Just like flight sim developers provide us with engine, speed & climb data = the biggest subjects of debate amongst us combat aircraft enthusiasts, as we can clearly see with all our threads on minute engine performance details. Because they know if they didn't provide any data for this there would immediately be an outcry.
  7. The reason the British removed the filler from US AP shells was as mentioned earlier because they had serious troubles getting the fuzes to work reliably. Infact testing in May 44 revealed US fuzes to have a worrying tendency of igniting prematurely, breaking up the shell before they could penetrate (German use of Face Hardened armour seems to have exacerbated this) Hence a recommendation to remove the fuzes on any rounds recieved until this issue could be resolved was issued the same month. In other words the British decision to switch to solid shot had nothing to do with any findings in regards to the behind armour effects of AP shells with a bursting charge vs solid shot. It was all down purely to serious issues with the fuzes. Meanwhile the Germans seem to have experienced the reverse problem, i.e. getting their fuzes to reliably ignite in the first place when fired through their biggest guns vs the relatively lightly armoured allied tanks in the west. The Germans apparently hadn't predicted the use of the relatively soft armour for the Sherman tank, a measure taken by US industry with the intention of lowering the amount of lethal spalling generated if the armour was penetrated. The Germans had designed their fuzes to work optimally against harder armour, and as a result the soft and relatively thin armour protection of the Sherman often allowed German AP shot to sail right through without providing enough of a decelerating force to ignite the fuze. Ironically in the end this prompted the the Germans to mimic the British and in the west issue Panzergranate either with an inert filler, or sometimes even without a filler or fuze, as explained in an immediate post war interview of German army ordnance personnel. (In the east the fuzes apparently worked reliably, which is attributed to the harder armour used on Soviet tanks) In other words getting these fuzes to work reliably was a real pain in the butt, but when they did work as intended the results were apparently dramatic enough in nature to warrant their use as std. These are not surveys meant to find out the difference between AP shells with a burster and solid shot though. Hence we cannot use them to draw any conclusions on that subject, esp. since we're talking about different tanks being shot by different rounds, i.e. no direct side by side comparison of shell vs solid shot against the same target. These tanks were also being surveyed well after the fact that they were knocked out, and by personnel who werent even there to witness it. Also as mentioned above the Germans encountered issues with their fuzes vs the soft armour of the Sherman, which is likely to have caused a great many German AP shells that penetrated a Sherman to act merely like solid shot and never explode. In the end it was evidently happening frequently enough that the Germans abandoned the burster in the west altogether. Finally US adoption of wet storage no doubt also reduced the risk of fires dramatically.
  8. Is this a test you can reference? This is incorrect, first of all the Soviets didn't copy the German heat treatment process as they quite simply didn't know about it, such things were closely guarded secrets. All they could do was copy the physical design, which they did for their latest shells, the BR-412 series, which incidently according to their own testing performed the best and hence they kept using it through to the 60's. Finally according to actual US testing of the latest German 75mm AP shells they were in every way superior to US AP shells of the same caliber (infact they were performing noticably better than what German specs indicated they would) : First report on armor penetration of German and American armor piercing projectiles & Twenty-fourth report on Ordnance program No. 5886: Dates of test Dec 1944 to Feb 1945 Conclusions: The results of the tests conducted in this program indicate: A. That the German projectiles had better penetration characterisitcs against homogeneous armor plate than the American Porjectiles. B. That the German proctiles had less tendency to shatter when fired against homogenous armor plate at high velocities. Recommendations: It is recommend that the design features, hardness pattern and composition of the German armor piercing projectil;es be studied for purpose of improving American armor piercing ammunition. In other words German heat treatment of AP shot was evidently in advance of what the US were using, something the US ordnance corps wrote several immediate post war reports about as well. US issues with heat treatment of AP shot also showed itself during the introduction of the 76mm tank gun which was initially touted as being the recipe for reliably fighting the German heavy tanks, yet in practice it was found that the 76mm AP shells would shatter against German armour of the same thickness that US testing at home had suggested it should've easily defeated, a problem later traced as being due to the noses of their AP shells being too soft. There's even a rather recent study on the matter from the US army's Munitions Engineering Technology Center: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1045347.pdf Most of these things are also discussed in Livingston & Bird's book.
  9. Have to agree with this. If TC is meant to be a sim then there needs to be some detailed armor penetration data for the main guns that we players can refer to in order to assess the strengths & weaknesses of our equipment in the sim, just like we have detailed performance data on the aircraft ingame. Again though, not asking the devs to reveal any trade secrets as to how stuff is coded. Only asking for transparency in terms of how accurately the guns vs armor aspect of the game is and what sources are used.
  10. An M113 is more spacious inside than the typical tank though, and incased explosives are more powerful due to pressure build up than explosives just sitting free. Also 60 g is actually more than what is in the typical WW2 Mk.2 handgrenade, which was also filled with TNT and not the roughly 70% more powerful Hexogen (W-Salz) used in the PzGr.39 for example. In other words the pressure generated would be equivalent to a handgrenade with a 100 g filler going off inside. So I'm still not so sure that one going off inside a more confined WW2 tank wouldn't cause pressure related injuries other than just burst eardrums, whilst the extra shrapnel generated would increase the lethality overall. (Lung damage has been cited as a common overpressure injury among tank crew casualties) Not sure how you can brush aside actual combat experience that casually, that's not being very objective IMO. Sounds like you've already made up your mind on the issue.
  11. With such a containment I'd expect quite a pressure increase inside the target vehicle upon detonation of the bursting charge, and the dispersion of fragments, which indeed would move forward in a cone due to the forward momentum of the projectile, would still be bouncing around inside a very confined space. As for the US 90mm shots at cologne, you might be right that it was firing M82 (we don't know), but with such a powerful gun the thin side armor of the Panther might not have provided enough resistance to set off the fuze for the bursting charge. The US apparently had great difficulty getting their fuzes to work properly in the first place, hence they abandoned the design much like the British at the start of the war. AFAIK only the Germans ever got their momemtum based fuzes to work somewhat reliably, but even they encountered issues when fired from powerful guns vs relatively thin armour, requiring an increasingly thick plate to detonate the more powerful the gun became. That said reading the memoirs of a StuG commander he explains how the bursting charge inside their Panzergranate ensured that Russian tanks almost always immediately brewed when they were penetrated. So even in the 75mm AP round of the StuG the bursting charge apparently was very effective.
  12. Well that is exactly what I've been saying, we don't need to know the coding that is taking place to make the penetration performance match reality, and by providing a penetration table for the guns ingame they are in no way revealing that either. All the penetration table is there for is to let players know the performance of their guns vs armor ingame, and wether or not said penetration performance is close to reality or not.
  13. Again by providing a penetration table for your simulator (if it is meant to be that mind you) you're not presenting anything not already available to everyone on here, as the penetration performance of these guns is very well documented. I already provided one reputable source they could comfortably lean upon as a reference, one they can cite as their main source for anyone wanting to know to what lengths they're going in terms of simulating the guns vs armor aspect of WW2 tank warfare.
  14. I should probably make clear that I didn't intend to "call out" the devs, I merely wish to know what type of experience TC is meant to be, i.e. is it supposed to be a realistic WW2 tank simulator? (which IMO seems to make the most sense based on the amount of effort they put into the interiors) Or is it intended more as a fun to play ground forces add on to the flight simulator part, giving fliers some human controlled ground units to shoot at? Either is ofcourse completely OK, it would just be nice to know exactly what TC is supposed to be I
  15. The Germans used AP shells with a bursting charge inside, I imagine that's probably a big part of the reason why Russian tanks blew up alot upon penetration.
×
×
  • Create New...