German vs Soviet AT capabilities

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Penetration is greatly overrated.

 

Why do think there are pictures showing people standng next to tanks with holes in them looking all pleased with themselves? Because it was common ?

 

Tracks are particularly vulnerable, a stopped tank is almost as dead as a completely destroyed tank especially if vulnerable to artillery or aircraft. The crew will probably bail out and hide until things quieten down, even if the damage is reletavely modest.

 

If I were to make a suggestion it would be that Tanks should be knocked out without to much trouble, maybe signified by wisps of smoke for ease of identification, only a few really brewing up completely. If your side is victorious, aided by your efforts in blunting an attack, and you are left in possession of the field then those disabled tanks are added to the kills tally. If your side losses the battle then the enemy salvages and repairs damaged tanks and therefore no kill is awarded.

 

I think many have an unreasonable expectation of what constitutes a kill and why. German armored vehicles were abandoned in Normandy, not from enemy fire but simply because of low moral due the threat of air attack. A view with which I completely concur. If I was attacked, with no adequate way of hitting back I would bugger off too, until the enemy had finished venting it's spleen on the vehicle before I would possibly return to see if anything was salvageable.

This describes it very well. It’s not possible to have a realistic simulation of tanks when the the only two possible states are ‘tank perfectly fine’ and ‘tank in flames’.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

It's hard to find any real information on the rounds effectiveness, this picture from a different thread here posted by SuperEtendard was the closest I could get.

 

Source is 'Lehrschrift Hubschrauberbewaffnung, Flugzeugmunition'. I tried to find the document online for Mk103 info, but could only get the list of contents.

 

 

It does note an incendiary effect due to fragments of the hull being melted by the round piercing the armour (this is likely not the exact translation, if anyone can get a closer translation please correct it).

 

Also there's the 140mm penetration value. It also notes that the round has a tendency to splinter if it encounters any kind of additional applique armour.

 

In any case, a round that has this much power behind it I find it hard to believe that it would not retain enough energy after penetrating 45mm of armour to still cause significant damage to anything in its path. It sounds likely that wearing thick padded clothing would be able to protect crew against most of the smaller splinters and fragmentation, but I doubt the same would go for the core of the round. Same for fuel tanks and engine, especially the latter with the more limited armour protection on the T34 engine deck.

 

Oh, and likely they'd have a much harder time to get the amount of rounds on target like we are able to do ingame, let alone aim for specific areas like we do.

 

 

The Described Effect on Armor is 

1. Penetration of the Armor by the Core
2. The "Leichtmetall" (Aluminium) Hull of the Shell transfers it's E_kin into E_therm  and melts, it's Forward Energy is transformed into Heat.
3. The molten Alumnium follows the Penetrator Core through the Hole created
4. The Term "Brandwirkung" can only partly be translated as incendiary, directly translated it would be "Fire Effect", but also "Heat Effect" and "Burn Effect". 

My Guess is that the desired effect is spray of molten Aluminium in the Fighting Compartment. 

 

Both the T-34 and KV-1 are powered by a V-2, which is a Light Metal/Aluminium Aircooled V12 (Why Russians, did you have to name the Engine in such a way that people, who only ever read headlines, think the Russian Tanks were actually powered by 2 Cylinder Engines?) and should be absolutely vulnerable to any kind of Projectile.

 

 

@Jason Williams: I am not aware anyone here made an attempt to veil the criticism we have. We are quite open and direct about it, because we like you and what you are doing with the game. 

In my culture, if someone doesn't criticise you, there are only two possibilites:

1. He hates you and wants you to fail, because he won't point out your mistakes, you will repeat them while he learns from them and out-does you
2. You have reached absolute Perfection, practically Nirvana

Well, since 2 is impossible, our criticism is a token of love. 

 

On the other hand, if my Boss started pointing out everything I do correctly and good, it's a sign of low expectations, a kind of  "didn't expect you to do this well". So if ever the German Community starts becoming very openly positive, you know something is drastically wrong. 

 

 

 

I think the Point trying to be made in any case is: 1 or 2 Hits should take a Tank out of Combat already, Mostly either due to Crew or Mobility Kill.

Now, fires and ammo hits and cookoffs are a different matter altogether. They should be a lot more random and not a kill criterium, or counted maybe as Total Destruction or something, while the others would simply result in a (temporary) Combat Take Out.

 

Now on a Server like TAW or Random Expert tanks are used offensively. If you were able to even only temporarily take them out, you can still delay offenses or even have captures. 

It would open up new possiblities for Mission Designers to implement Tanks into Dynamic Warefare Servers. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

You lot talking about online or offline pen values?

 

[Finkeren]

Spalling from a simple, non explosive penetrator from another tank going 3000mps is equally deadly, and is how a large number of tanks are actually "killed"

That's my understanding from reading "Death Traps" anyway.

Problem is, that the shards from this kind of spalling won’t go that fast. Spalling from penetration can only ever go as fast as velocity of the projectile as it breaks through to the compartment, because the shards are accellerated by essentially being “pushed” by the projectile as it breaks through. If the projectile has spent most of its energy penetrating the armor, it isn’t going to move very fast and carry much energy by the time it breaks through, and consequently the spalling it creates isn’t going to move very fast or carry much energy.

 

If, on the other hand, the spalling is created by detonation of high explosives or by a larger caliber AP round (for instance from another tank) which uses less of its energy in penetrating the armor, then the shards from spalling will move faster, carry a lot more energy and thus be quite deadly.

[Gambit21]

Problem is, that the shards from this kind of spalling won’t go that fast. Spalling from penetration can only ever go as fast as velocity of the projectile as it breaks through to the compartment, because the shards are accellerated by essentially being “pushed” by the projectile as it breaks through. If the projectile has spent most of its energy penetrating the armor, it isn’t going to move very fast and carry much energy by the time it breaks through, and consequently the spalling it creates isn’t going to move very fast or carry much energy.

If, on the other hand, the spalling is created by detonation of high explosives or by a larger caliber AP round (for instance from another tank) which uses less of its energy in penetrating the armor, then the shards from spalling will move faster, carry a lot more energy and thus be quite deadly.

Makes sense.

Sabot rounds though are the standard round for killing tanks (fired from another tank) rather than an explosive round - so it must me highly effective at least in it's modern iteration.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Gambit21

[Wulf]

How quickly do you imagine a penetrator would be travelling once it punches through the plate?  Answer; that depends on the range and the thickness of the armour BUT, whatever that figure might be, it will probably be at least 1200 - 2000 fps + I'd guess.  A projectile typically must be travelling at about 300 pfs to penetrate sufficiently to kill you.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Wulf

[LukeFF]

You lot talking about online or offline pen values?

 

There's no difference between the two.

[Finkeren]

How quickly do you imagine a penetrator would be travelling once it punches through the plate? Answer; that depends on the range and the thickness of the armour BUT, whatever that figure might be, it will probably be at least 1200 - 2000 fps + I'd guess. A projectile typically must be travelling at about 300 pfs to penetrate sufficiently to kill you.

As you said: It depends a lot on the circumstances. For the VYa-23 which only penetrates 25mm at 400m, I wouldn’t expect anything close to 1000fps by the time it enters the compartment. For the BK 3,7 I’d expect it to have a lot higher velocity when it penetrates (except maybe from the front or from long range shots), but the BK 3,7 will be hitting with far fewer rounds and therefore create comparatively less spalling with a smaller chance of actually hitting anyone. Also, while the projectile itself may be deadly when it breaks through, the spalling it creates may not be. The shards will most likely be going slower than the projectile, and they will not be optimally shaped for penetration and more likely to give superficial cuts than actually penetrate through the body.

 

Still, it all depends. Firing the BK 3,7 at very close range (~100m) into the side of a T-34 should leave plenty of energy to create spalling with deadly potential, but the question still remains, how much of it?

[HagarTheHorrible]

Problem is, that the shards from this kind of spalling won’t go that fast. Spalling from penetration can only ever go as fast as velocity of the projectile as it breaks through to the compartment, because the shards are accellerated by essentially being “pushed” by the projectile as it breaks through. If the projectile has spent most of its energy penetrating the armor, it isn’t going to move very fast and carry much energy by the time it breaks through, and consequently the spalling it creates isn’t going to move very fast or carry much energy.

If, on the other hand, the spalling is created by detonation of high explosives or by a larger caliber AP round (for instance from another tank) which uses less of its energy in penetrating the armor, then the shards from spalling will move faster, carry a lot more energy and thus be quite deadly.

Ballcocks.

 

Why does everyone argue over absolutes ?

 

Penetration values are like relying on car manufactures fuel economy quotes. Maybe, but then only under idea circumstances. If a round hits at anything less than perpendicular to the target significant amounts of energy are wasted effort.

 

Concussive shock and spalling are the most likely reasons a tank crew are incapacitated and crew incapacitation is probably the biggest cause of tanks becoming combat ineffective rather than because of total destruction. Small metal splinters don't have to travel quickly or be very large to injure crewmen, even if the resulting injuries are non life threatening, not everyone has the same vim, vigor and ardor to fight as the Black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Spall can also set off secondary explosions, fire or damage mission critical equipment, There were a whole subset of munitions developed after the war to do just that because of experiences of fighting from armored vehicles, from both world wars. Vulnerability and inability to defend oneself from an attacker are also prime reasons for tanks to be incapacitated. The crew, with no effective method of defence, particularly from air attack are highly likely to abandon ship until things improve.

 

You are all arguing in such absolute and simplistic terms. You are arguing as if the hit boxes on simulated tanks represent, in anyway realistic or the only reasons for tank losses in combat.

 

I would however agree that aircraft fired rounds are less likely to produce spalling than tank or artillery rounds but that is offset by the perceived vulnerability and defenclessness of tanks to attack from the air.

Edited November 14, 2017 by HagarTheHorrible

[FTC_Etherlight]

The topic piqued my curiosity and therefore I set up a little efficiency test, just for myself, really. Especially since one never knows how patches/fixes etc. could have an impact on gun performance, I just wanted to see what I can in theory achieve in ground attack missions with what's available to us right now. Now just a disclaimer: This is not a definitive scientific study with results that should be taken as truth or proof for this or that! This is a simple test setup from a guy who considers himself a decent tank killer, but there are many worse people and many better people out there than me when it comes to this stuff. So take this with a pinch of salt.

 

The setup: Since I am not really interested in "Well, if you go at about this altitude, at exactly this speed and dive angle and then exactly hit this..."-stuff, I considered a more realistic approach to the attack run. On most servers and in most situations you simply do not have the time to reset for a perfect attack run every time, so I simply went with shallow angles from the side of the tank, killing a tank on every return or at most 2 attack runs with the different attack planes. Yes, certainly, you can be more efficient if you get closer and use less ammo, but that also means more attack runs. Since this was meant as a realistic setting, I set 2 runs as my personal limit per target. I attacked T-34 mod. 42s with the Germans and Panzer 4 Gs with the Russians, since medium tanks are the most common targets in my experience and can be killed pretty reliably.

 

The results:

Ju-87: With the Stuka I needed between 2-3 squeezes to kill a T-34, although 2 were enough most of the time. A kill in my book is an explosion or black smoke, since those usually explode after a time and it's usually a waste to shoot at them again. Since you get 12 squeezes out of a Stuka that would be 5,3 kills on average (12/2,25). Let's say 5, which also reflects my personal results (between 4-6). Of course that only works if you make sure all bursts hit, which I can, but it's probably not something everbody can manage.

 

IL-2: With the IL-2 23mm AP only it's not so easily observable. Because of the nature of the fast firing cannons you usually overdo it and quite a few shells hit an already dead tank. I myself guess when the tank explodes and can preserve quite a bit of ammo doing so. I did a few (pretty lazy) runs with full ammo and destroyed between 8-10 tanks with this method. Let's say 9 on average. Add to that the 8 big rockets, which are 1 dead Panzer 4 each (if you hit consistently, which I can). Additionally you can take 2 100kg bombs, which are also 1 dead Panzer 4 each, if you hit perfectly. Now that is something I can't rightly manage consistently, so I'll say I get 1 additional tank kill out of them on average. So for me that would amount to about 18 tanks with the IL-2 41/42. Funnily enough the IL-2 43 is actually a worse tank killer than the earlier versions. Although the 37mm is more efficient than the 23's in theory and also practice, you also lose 4 rockets, which is a big hit to your kill tally. The difference is not huge, they're pretty damn close in terms of final tally, so it probably comes down to how good you are with rockets. If you cannot properly and consistently hit with them, you're actually better off with the 43.

 

Hs-129: The Henschel is a bit of a problem for situations like these. In theory, you have a lot of destructive power and quite a bit of ammo, but the accuracy of the gun is pretty bad compared to others.. Now you COULD only shoot in the last moment and make the absolute most of your ammo, but that also means a lot of attack runs. Since I set 2 attack runs as a restriction I had to shoot from further out, which meant that some of that precious ammo went into the tracks or sometimes didn't hit the target. With this I managed between 7-9 targets, so lets say 8.

 

The 110-G2: Now this is where the fun begins for the tankbusting German. Personally I needed between 4-6 hits per tank, quite often 4 are enough to get them smoking (which is a kill), but sometimes I needed five. 6 were extremely rare and I got between 11 and 15 targets on my runs, so I'll say 13.

 

My conclusion: The difference in power here ranges from noticable to dramatic, depending on the timeframe and available planes to both sides. Then again, the German bombers can carry quite a bit more oompf, too. The Heinkel can carry two 1800 KG or even one 2500 KG (which is nothing short of a tactical nuke) and the Ju-88 can carry 4 500 KG and 2 250KG, which are exceptional bombloads overall compared to what the Pe-2 manages. It all depends on the target I suppose. One might even say that the Ju-87 is completely worthless when the Ju-88 is available, since even people who are not the greatest at bombing tanks have a pretty decent chance to kill 6 targets reliably with the 4x500, 2x250 loadout, while being way faster, way better protected and have therefore a better chance of survival. Now the fact that quite a few servers forbid certain loadouts is another matter entirely, but I cannot fault the game for that. I cannot attest to how realistic the performance of the 23mm is against tanks, but balance-wise I don't see an issue. VVS is good at wrecking tanks, LW is good at bombing stuff. All's well in my book.

Edited November 14, 2017 by JG4_Etherlight

[Porkins]

What's the point of this post other than veiled criticism?

 

Jason

I think this reaction is a bit out of line to the OP's post. He posed a question. He didn't do it disrespectfully, he didn't emotionally vent his spleen, he identified something he thinks is an issue, presented information to support his view, and then asked for thoughts. He didn't make a veiled criticism, he was very up front with what his concern was. I have no idea if he is right or not, but the subject matter and nature of his post shouldn't provoke defensiveness. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by Porkins

[=RvE=Windmills]

Ballcocks.

 

Why does everyone argue over absolutes ?

 

Penetration values are like relying on car manufactures fuel economy quotes. Maybe, but then only under idea circumstances. If a round hits at anything less than perpendicular to the target significant amounts of energy are wasted effort.

 

Concussive shock and spalling are the most likely reasons a tank crew are incapacitated and crew incapacitation is probably the biggest cause of tanks becoming combat ineffective rather than because of total destruction. Small metal splinters don't have to travel quickly or be very large to injure crewmen, even if the resulting injuries are non life threatening, not everyone has the same vim, vigor and ardor to fight as the Black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Spall can also set off secondary explosions, fire or damage mission critical equipment, There were a whole subset of munitions developed after the war to do just that because of experiences of fighting from armored vehicles, from both world wars. Vulnerability and inability to defend oneself from an attacker are also prime reasons for tanks to be incapacitated. The crew, with no effective method of defence, particularly from air attack are highly likely to abandon ship until things improve.

 

You are all arguing in such absolute and simplistic terms. You are arguing as if the hit boxes on simulated tanks represent, in anyway realistic or the only reasons for tank losses in combat.

 

I would however agree that aircraft fired rounds are less likely to produce spalling than tank or artillery rounds but that is offset by the perceived vulnerability and defenclessness of tanks to attack from the air.

 

 

I don't think anyone really disagrees with what you say, the question is how to represent these things ingame believably. A single penetration might sometimes be cause for abandoning the tank, in other situations the crew might fight it out even in a partially disabled machine. So what damage could realistically be caused by the weapons we have ingame, and at what point would it be believable that it results in the tank being destroyed/taken out of the fight?

 

I would argue that the much greater penetration potential of the German ammunition would be more effective at bringing this about, and I feel that could be better represented ingame with a greater ease of destroying tanks.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Windmills

[von-Luck]

There is a lot of conflicting information in here and some rather inaccurate assumptions being made about post penetration spall and affect. One point I will bring up is a 75mm cannon typically fired 3 penetrating rounds to effect a total kill. That means the first round could have caused catastrophic damage but more rounds would be fired to guarantee the affect and potentially start an internal fire. Better safe than sorry and a burning wreck is considerably more difficult to bring back into the fight.

 

Now let's talk about smaller caliber anti tank projectiles - unlike their larger cousins these rarely had a post penetration explosive charge and relied largely on the hardened core and to a much lesser extent spall. Small anti tank rounds require much more accurate placement to yield results - tanks aren't empty inside but shot placement is vital. Achieving a catastrophic kill with low caliber AT is very difficult a more likely result would be loss of a crewman or two, a mobility kill, or disabling the vehicle by other means. Spall from a small caliber AT round is only likely to cause injury around the immediate vicinity of the penetration. There will be very little in the way of lethal spall and debris with small caliber AT. I think it would be difficult to quantify how many rounds it would require to disable a vehicle sufficiently my immediate guess would be 4-6 rounds of 30-37mm on average to achieve desired results but keep in mind the first round could disable something important. Again shot placement is so important here I can't say it enough. Smaller rounds like 23mm are even less likely to cause significant damage or injury as their affect will be even more local and the round likely has even less energy post penetration. Without any real numbers here I would guess 23mm would take an average of 9-12 penetrations but you really need to aim those shots and poorly aimed penetrations may not have any real effect.

 

I feel as though any number of penetrations per "kill" arrived upon for any weapon in use currently will be arbitrary. Without a complex damage model you are merely assigning a number. I cannot vouch for one side of another in this as I don't often find myself attacking tanks.

 

von Luck

Edited November 14, 2017 by von-Luck

[Porkins]

I'm the furthest thing from an expert on this, but will add that from the books I've read, the claims of tank kills from pilots were pretty grossly over inflated regardless of nation. So I imagine that if the devs are modeling the cannons and armor with some degree of accuracy, they may indeed be harder to kill than what one might think reading some pilot accounts from WW II. 

[LukeFF]

 

 

I'm the furthest thing from an expert on this, but will add that from the books I've read, the claims of tank kills from pilots were pretty grossly over inflated regardless of nation.

 

Not only tanks, but military vehicles of all sorts. The Battle of Mortain is a great example of that:

 

RAF pilots claimed a total of eighty four tanks destroyed and twenty one damaged, plus a further 12 other vehicles destroyed and twenty-one damaged. The IXth US Tactical Air Command, which flew 441 sorties over the period of the 7th to 10th August, made claims of sixty nine tanks destroyed, eight probably destroyed and thirty-five damaged and 116 other vehicles destroyed or damaged. Confirmed results on the ground were somewhat different. Between the 12th and 20th August 1944, operational research teams from both the 21st Army Group and Second Tactical Air Force conducted separate investigations in the battle area and than compared and collated their results. They found thirty-four Panthers destroyed, ten MkIV’s, three SP guns, twenty-three armored personnel carriers, eight armored cars and forty-six other vehicles. Of the forty-six tanks they concluded that twenty had been destroyed by ground fire (sic. ATG’s, tank fire, etc), seven by air force rockets, two by bombs, four from multiple causes, and eleven by either abandoned or destroyed by their crews…seventeen additional Panthers were found in the area over which the LAH Panzer Division had operated, and of these six had been knocked out by Army ground fire, four by air force rockets and the remainder were destroyed or abandoned by their crews. 

 

 

-From the book Steel Inferno

[Gambit21]

Allied pilots claims of ricocheting .50 cal off the road underneath German tanks to 'kill' them is another good example.

[Finkeren]

Allied pilots claims of ricocheting .50 cal off the road underneath German tanks to 'kill' them is another good example.

Who actually ever said that? I thought it was just something that was dreamed up on flight sim forums back in the 90s?

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Who actually ever said that? I thought it was just something that was dreamed up on flight sim forums back in the 90s?

That was from the Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator 1 manual.

 

What complete and utter codswallop.

Edited November 15, 2017 by boaty_McBoatface

[Gambit21]

Who actually ever said that? I thought it was just something that was dreamed up on flight sim forums back in the 90s?

Yeager IIRC.

[Porkins]

Who actually ever said that? I thought it was just something that was dreamed up on flight sim forums back in the 90s?

My father in law read a book about the Thunderbolt in Europe, and I think I recall him relating that factoid to me from that book. Or, it was disproving that factoid, I honestly don't recall. But the fact that it was addressed in the book indicates to me that it made the rounds in some form outside of a flight sim discussion. 

[Porkins]

Not only tanks, but military vehicles of all sorts. The Battle of Mortain is a great example of that:

 

 

-From the book Steel Inferno

Great info. Another good source on the surprisingly complex topic of tank kills is in Forcyk's Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front series. One reason kill reports from pilots were often inflated is because they consistently overestimated damage, and underestimated the ability for tanks to be repaired. It's surprising how many tanks that were knocked out in a battle could be repaired and back in action in less than 24 hours as long as the army held the field and didn't have to abandon any tanks. A pilot may strafe and hit a tank and see the tank stop, or smoke, or the crew "abandon" it, but these tanks were often repairable, or sometimes even playing possum. 

[Gambit21]

Penetrators that pieced the hull and were stuck/imbedded in the armor were often ground down on either side and used as a patch (Shermans in France etc)

[Hirachi]

 

 

Not sure if it a Pak40 75mm that is on this Ju-88P but i hope it is able to open up a T-34 like a tuna can

 

"Any problem on earth can be solved with the proper application of high explosives"

Edited November 16, 2017 by Simba

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I think that one is a 50mm cannon, the same that we have in the Panzer III L. It still would make short work of a T-34 from the sides at the close ranges an aircraft opens fire to a tank (in comparison to tank combat).

[Hirachi]

I think that one is a 50mm cannon, the same that we have in the Panzer III L. It still would make short work of a T-34 from the sides at the close ranges an aircraft opens fire to a tank (in comparison to tank combat).

Well i think it the P-4 that carry the 50mm cannon 

 

But i do think this is the P-1 that got the big Pak 40 or Pak 39

 

[1CAG_Panzergranate]

Back in 1986 / 1987 I worked at the Bovington Tank Museum going through and compiling (then) recently declassified German Kummersdorf range test figures on AT weapons of both German, the Axis allies, Soviet, British and American. (The Germans do like to test and record everything methodically..... it's almost a  compulsion with them!!). If you want to know where WoT and WT plus a host of other games and wargaming rules sets sourced their figures from, it was through my work 30 years ago.

 

The 37mm. gun arming the Stuka tank buster was originally intended for the SdKfz.234 heavy armoured car, but it was decided to use the 50mm. L.60 Kwk.39. gun instead. This left the already produced semi-automatic 37mm. L.45 guns without a host, so they were offered to the Luftwaffe.

 

Performance is identical to the "Army Knocking Machine" 37mm. L.46 PaK.36 which proved pretty useless versus T-70, T-34 and KV tanks front on at even point blank range:

 

48mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APHE PzGr. & PzGr.18 (PzGr.35)

65mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APCBC-HE PzGr.39

79mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APCR PzGr.40

 

In game AFV real life armour layouts-

 

GERMAN.

 

Pz.III.L:

 

Front lower = 50mm. Front upper 70mm. Turret front = 77mm. Turret and hull SIDES = 22mm. !!!! Rear = 50mm. DECK = 12mm.!!!!

 

Pz.IV.F: 

 

Front = 50mm. Sides = 30mm. Rear = 30mm. (Turret same as hull).

 

Pz.IV.G & Pz.IV.H:

 

Front = 80mm. (Sides, Rear and Turret same as Pz.IV.F)

 

StuG.III.G:

 

Front lower = 50mm. Front upper = 80mm. Sides = 30mm. Rear = 50mm.

 

RUSSIAN

 

BA-10M = Front, sides and rear = 15mm. Deck = 6mm.

 

BA-64 = Only bullet proof versus 7.92 rounds!!

 

T-34/76 STZ: (Allied = T-34/76C, German = T-34/76 Ausf C) This is an up armoured T-34/76B and is 3 MPH / 10 KPH slower than normal.

 

Front lower = 45mm. Front upper = 60mm. Sides = Upper 45mm. / Lower 47mm. Rear = 45mm.

 

KV-1: Front = 75mm. Sides = 52mm. Rear = 52mm. upper / 75mm. lower DECK = 40mm.!!!! Turret front = 89mm. Turret sides and rear = 52mm.

 

Allied players have these guns to work with (NB: Real life range test performance not guaranteed in game):

 

7.92mm. AP bullet = 12mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres

 

Browning 0.50 Cal HMG (aircraft short barrelled) = 18mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres AP/I.

 

12.7mm. DsHK = 25mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres

 

14.5mm. HMG = 29mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres (Later IL-2M (1943)).

 

20mm. ShVAK = 15mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APHE BR-150

 

23mm. Vya = 69mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres HVAP (Arrowhead)

 

37mm. L.33 = 30mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APHE BR-160 (LaGG-3)

 

37mm. L.46 = 42mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APHE BR-160 (IL-2 37mm. gun pods).

 

45mm. L.46 = 52mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APHE BR-250 (Bot BA-10M armoured cars & Bot T-70)

 

76.2mm. L.42.5 (Tank gun) = 104mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APHEBC BR-350 B (Bot & Player T-34/ 76 STZ) 

 

Axis players have to work with:

 

7.92mm. Patr.SMK = 12mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres

 

20mm. Mg.17 = 15mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres AP/I

 

20mm. Mg.151 = 31mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres AP/I

 

37mm. L.46 = 79mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APCR PzGr.40 (Stuka gun pods)

 

37mm. L.89 BK-37 Lang = 129mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APCBC-HE PzGr.39 (Bf-110 G2 belly cannon (most common is real life))

 

37mm. L.89 BK-37 Lang = 156mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APCR PzGr.40 (Bf-110 G2 belly cannon (I doubt this is used in game))  

 

50mm. L.60 = 99mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APCBC-HE PzGr.39 (Player Pz.III.L.)

 

75mm. L.24 = 59mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APCBC-HE PzGr.39. (Bot Pz.IV.F.1)

 

75mm. L.48 = 108mm. @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres APCBC-HE PzGr.39 (Player Pz.IV.G/H & Bot Marder.III.H)

[JtD]

Interesting, thanks for posting. The info you compiled - is it available in a particular book or on a particular website you would recommend?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The 37mm guns in the Stuka are the BK 37, long barreled cannon derived from the 37mm FlaK 18 family, it fired the 37x263mm cartridge, and it used the tungsten core ammo for anti tank purposes, at 1100 m/s it had outstanding penetration performance for its caliber, almost the same as the long 75mm in the Panzer IV at 100 meters.

 

However being an APCR round, it lost performance significantly with distance and slope angle.

[von-Luck]

The 37mm guns in the Stuka are the BK 37, long barreled cannon derived from the 37mm FlaK 18 family, it fired the 37x263mm cartridge, and it used the tungsten core ammo for anti tank purposes, at 1100 m/s it had outstanding penetration performance for its caliber, almost the same as the long 75mm in the Panzer IV at 100 meters.

 

However being an APCR round, it lost performance significantly with distance and slope angle.

37mm solid core would have an easy time penetrating but the damage from this penetration would be very much localized. That said any kind of penetration of your armor would be quite distressing. Especially if the culprit was still loitering. I imagine when we see more work go into tanks we will likely see some form of updated damage model which should change current arithmetic when tank hunting now.

 

von Luck

[Mac_Messer]

What's the point of this post other than veiled criticism?

 

Jason

You *do* realise that creating a tank game expansion raises expectations for realism...right?

Edited January 16, 2018 by Mac_Messer

[FuriousMeow]

You *do* realise that creating a tank game expansion raises expectations for realism...right?

 

From first post:

 

 

I feel it would be really good for the German side if the Mk103 and BK3.7 was boosted by about 30%/40% in power.

 

That's not about realism.

Edited January 16, 2018 by FuriousMeow

[Max_Damage]

Historically people were dissatisfied with AT performance of 37mm. Of 50mm.

 

Only 75 mm gave proper results.

 

You somehow imply that a 37 mm gun if mounted on a mythical tank buster plane, becomes tolerable?

Sabot rounds you keep mentioning were not issued to said planes pretty much at all. Standart ap 37mm were used and it is ineffective. Standart AP become effective only with 75+ mm guns.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Historically people were dissatisfied with AT performance of 37mm. Of 50mm.

 

Only 75 mm gave proper results.

 

You somehow imply that a 37 mm gun if mounted on a mythical tank buster plane, becomes tolerable?

Sabot rounds you keep mentioning were not issued to said planes pretty much at all. Standart ap 37mm were used and it is ineffective. Standart AP become effective only with 75+ mm guns.

 

Main problem the 37mm would have is the overall little effect compared to higher caliber weapons, even more if the ammunition used was subcaliber. It's not sabot, it's APCR as the penetrator remains inside the lightweight shell. Afaik the 75mm was mounted in few Hs 129 late in the war, and it really hampered it's flight characteristics. A bigger platform like the Ju 88P (hopefully one day we will have it in the sim) would be able to use the 75mm (also 50mm, or twin 37mm) more effectively.

 

 

In this German handbook about aerial cannon/mg ammunition https://es.scribd.com/doc/214886494/L-Dv-4000-10-Munitionsvorschrift-fur-Fliegerbordwaffen-Teil-10-1944 , you can find listed for the BK 3,7 cm gun used by the Stuka and Bf 110 the tungsten core APCR ammunition, and in it's use it notes: "For use only against the heavier armored ground vehicles, practice shooting forbidden". There is also a training version of this round, which shares the same velocity as the APCR one, for use when adjusting the guns to use the APCR ammunition.

 

 

 

There also are HE shells and a full caliber AP, but it doesn't list penetration values for it and nothing special in it's use description, I guess this one was against lightly armored vehicles or ships?

[Panthera]

A few things to keep in mind when talking about the effectiveness of AT guns put on aircraft:

 

1. The attack will come from an upwards angle, thus sloping armour suddely works against a target tank.

2. The MV of the projectile is increased by an amount similar to the traveling speed of the aircraft, thus expect slightly increased penetration power.

3. Main target is the top of a vehicle which is usually the thinnest at around 15-25mm thick - esp. the engine deck is vulnerable.

 

This goes some way to explain why 3 to 3.7cm AT guns on the ground were all but useless against tanks after 1941, whilst at the same time they were deadly effective tank killers when mounted on an aircraft right until the end of hostilites - heck even to this day.

 

 

 

As for 5 to 7.5cm guns mounted on Jabo's, they were pretty much overkill most of the time.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Panthera

[hames123]

Not many tanks were completely penetrated and destroyed, since they are big metal boxes on tracks.

 

Many Wehrboos(what they are known as outside this game community) excessively focus on how, in theory, their German tanks cannot be penetrated(which is frequently incorrect), and then state that this means it is invincible. However, a tank can be knocked out without a penetration, and thus the first shot is usually vital in a 1v1, not who has a better tank. Thus, the Wehrboos make the same mistake as Hitler and his tank designers. They think bigger guns and better armour make a better tank, when really a Sherman can easily knock out a Panther at close to mid range and a Firefly at long range, as easily as the Panther can kill them, essentially making all that extra armour useless. There is a reason heavy tanks died out after the war, to be replaced with MBTs that grew from the Centurion. It was because militaries realised that a hit will likely kill no matter how thick the armour, and so improved fire control systems, mobility and armament, to ensure their tank has a higher chance to get the first, critical, hit.

[SYN_Luftwaffles]

Mission makers would just lock em

[ZachariasX]

Who actually ever said that? I thought it was just something that was dreamed up on flight sim forums back in the 90s?

 

Came from here:

 

Haven't found the name of the pilot. I guess over the years, one tends to call a lot of things "Tiger tanks". I also cannot find any pictures of Tiger tanks ever pulling fuel trailer, whereas a multitude of other types are shown on photos doing so. Whoever the guy was, I would be giving him a break for being imprecise in type labeling. For the Germans, a lot of planes were "SCHPITFAIAAAA!!!" that in fact weren't. I mean, so, what. It is not like that he could have switched from cal.50 to a Maverick missile after noticing that he encountered a tough nut to crack. As long as it is metal and on the ground and you can shoot at it, it must be a tank. Makbe a Tiger tank. Definitely a Tiger tank.

 

Just too bad that it got sucked up literally in so many booklets that are serving as "primary literature" to many.

 

Yeager IIRC.

 

That's not his accent. Must be someone else.

[unreasonable]

He was probably firing at these. 

 

Edited January 26, 2018 by unreasonable

[Panthera]

He was probably firing at these. 

 

Crocodiles-Geilenkirchen-copy.jpg

 

I hope he had FF turned off

[ZachariasX]

 

 

I hope he had FF turned off

Clostermann was rather colorful in his description of American gunners shooting at him (British, like the Corcodile), hence his low appreciation of things colored kaki.