Quick Missions: A really fun game mode, too bad the game play can be so disappointing!

[LachenKrieg]

I must say, I have really enjoyed the Quick Mission feature in Tank Crew, and only wish they could increase the number of Tank duel/skirmish points on each map. But I also have to say that I just had one of the most disappointing experiences using this feature. The reason, in-game AI and what appears to be a serious issue with the ballistics model.

 

 For anyone wanting more free content with their Tank Crew purchase, the QMB is your friend. The only real limitation is your imagination. You can build a scenario that is easy enough to complete without having to defend even a single shot, or one where you are not likely to survive the first engagement without a lot of luck. And variation in the way the exact same scenario setup plays out on the different maps/skirmish points pretty much guarantees that no two battles are the same.

 

How content rich is that!?

 

The following was one of my favorite scenarios, but has now seemingly fallen victim to issues in the game itself. Is this a one off event, or a new game mechanic? 

 

The scenario: You use the command menu to control the other PzIII in your formation to provide support and flanking protection to the single Tiger in the 2nd formation.

 

Your formation; 2 PzIII M's loaded with AP/APCR shells and equipped with spaced armor (your command vehicle).

Second formation in your platoon; 1 Tiger loaded with AP/APCR. (Use two formations to simulate a single platoon because we cannot have more then one type of tank in each formation)

 

Enemy units: 1st formation; 4 Shermans loaded with HE, 2nd formation; 4 SU 122's loaded with HE, 3rd formation; 4 SU 152's loaded with HE.

 

The Problem: The second PzIII in my formation wouldn't follow any commands from the Tilde key menu, but instead seemed to just mirror what ever I did. Things were made even worse by the limited distance between us. And while using APCR to attack a Sherman frontally <300 m out, I was unable to penetrate it. This is ridiculous and really needs to be addressed. If  I have to constantly be aware of my tanks exposure while I am on the field, then I shouldn't be rewarded with a dud shell 3 times in a row when I finally manage to gain an advantageous position on my opponent.

 

The L/60 has a penetrating power of about 130 mm when using APCR rounds, and the Sherman has an effective armor protection of about 90 mm when considering its slope. I should have been able to punch through that like a hot knife through butter, but no, I was basically alone in my formation without a gun! The Sherman being harassed by the Tiger in the second formation of my platoon with his turret turned away from me, shook off 3 direct APCR shots on the nose from my L/60, while an SU 122 would eventually stroll up and hand me a one-tap-dirt-nap. I should have been able to say hello to the Sherman and been on my way, but that wasn't in the cards for this simulation.  

 

If your into WWII AFV's, this should be the place you want to be?

 

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by LachenKrieg
grammer

[SCG_judgedeath3]

8 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

The L/60 has a penetrating power of about 130 mm when using APCR rounds, and the Sherman has an effective armor protection of about 90 mm when considering its slope

At point blank range but APCR/tungsten shells lose the velocity speed fast over distance, even more than a normal AP round actually. What distance were these shermans?
Checked the stats on sherman and panzer III M:
Panzer III M with APCR can penetrate armour thats angled in 60 degrees:
100 meters: 39mm

500 meters: 30mm

1000 meters: 22mm

2000 meters: 12 mm

 

Sherman of the type in the game should have 51mm armour frontally, after checking:
Turret: 89mm at 0 degrees/although curved
upper hull: 51mm with near 60 degree slope.

Lower hull: 51mm with around 15 degree slop, depending on where you measure it from.

 

So panzer III with tungsten/APCR can only penetrate the sherman frontally from distance of 0-around 400 meters if one aim for the weakspots, shoting the upper hull frontally wont do anything to them, and further than that and it wont matter at all.

Completely different story if it shows the side thats not sloped at all, then most of these shells have far higher penetration values due to it not being sloped.

 

[Voidhunger]

From my gameplay testing its very hard to penetrate enemy tanks with 75mm APCR rounds.

99% of the time round is ricocheting, after few rounds I always switch to APHE.

[LachenKrieg]

7 hours ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

At point blank range but APCR/tungsten shells lose the velocity speed fast over distance, even more than a normal AP round actually. What distance were these shermans?
Checked the stats on sherman and panzer III M:
Panzer III M with APCR can penetrate armour thats angled in 60 degrees:
100 meters: 39mm

500 meters: 30mm

1000 meters: 22mm

2000 meters: 12 mm

 

Sherman of the type in the game should have 51mm armour frontally, after checking:
Turret: 89mm at 0 degrees/although curved
upper hull: 51mm with near 60 degree slope.

Lower hull: 51mm with around 15 degree slop, depending on where you measure it from.

 

So panzer III with tungsten/APCR can only penetrate the sherman frontally from distance of 0-around 400 meters if one aim for the weakspots, shoting the upper hull frontally wont do anything to them, and further than that and it wont matter at all.

Completely different story if it shows the side thats not sloped at all, then most of these shells have far higher penetration values due to it not being sloped.

 

What source are you using for the numbers you are quoting?

 

I found 1 source that was supposedly taken from testing during WWII, and it claims the L/60 could penetrate 76mm of armor placed at 60 degrees, and 94mm when placed at 90 degrees from 300 m away. At least according to this source, the L/60 should be able to penetrate the Sherman frontally from a point blank position.

 

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2013/03/penetration.html

Elsewhere, average performance for the L/60 using APCR against sloped steel at 30 degrees is reported as 130mm @100m, and 72mm @500.

 

As I stated in the original post though, I was <300 meters away, and the Sherman has an approximate effective armor protection of 90mm when accounting for its slope.

 

And apparently when the Sherman first met PzIII/IV's in Africa, it did suffered loses, which isn't saying much I guess considering we would only be interested in confirmed frontal kills using the L/60.

 

So the penetration values you are quoting seem to be a little on the low side, but I am probably also responsible for overreacting a bit to what remains the worst QM experience I have had so far. In hind sight, I should have went for the turret side as it was angled slightly away from me instead of the bigger target just under the turret ring.

 

But this is also not the only issue raised about discrepancies with the in-game ballistics. What I would like to see is that the SIM is based on real world data, so that everything works as it was. In this case, I am happy to learn that the reason I couldn't kill the Sherman from the front at <300m is because that is the way it was. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by LachenKrieg
fixed link

[SCG_judgedeath3]

Taken from encyclopedia of german armour written by hilary doyle.
Also taken from combat mission which has also excellent tanka rmour/penetration data for all guns.
Most articles and books I have never encountered so high numbers for penetration, not even warthunder who has a good penetration/armour data on the tanks have far lower as well.

To date those numbers you posted are the highest I´ve seen for panzer III, more close to my data on panzer IV actually.

Had a look in warthunder and their pen/armour data is close to my data, also screenshot of the result and their data, and two pictures where to aim with panzer III:
 

But note: I think warthunders data is still a bit high but closer to what the battlefield docus and tanks docus claim between sherman and panzer IIIs engagements and they trusted the panzer IV specials to engage the sherman in north africa.
Also yes, the ballistics in tank crew isnt 100% and bounces a bit too much and the apcr arent fully modelled to what they should be, but hopefully one day soon

Edited December 8, 2020 by SCG_judgedeath3

[LachenKrieg]

3 hours ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

But note: I think warthunders data is still a bit high but closer to what the battlefield docus and tanks docus claim between sherman and panzer IIIs engagements and they trusted the panzer IV specials to engage the sherman in north africa.
Also yes, the ballistics in tank crew isnt 100% and bounces a bit too much and the apcr arent fully modelled to what they should be, but hopefully one day soon

I'm not sure I would rely on those type of games for complete accuracy. I might be wrong, but I believe they have issues like game balance to deal with, and my feeling is that things are adjusted for the sake of game play a little. Its one of the issues I hope would be avoided in a SIM.

 

But regarding the numbers I posted above, they are listed as established average penetration performance numbers from real testing against an armor plate angled at 30 degrees. And those numbers also fall very much in line with the available data for the Pak 38, which is essentially the same gun. The numbers for both the PzIII gun and the AT gun are also well referenced, so I am happy to go by these numbers.

 

Here is a screen shot of the penetration data for the Pak 38.

 

 

[SCG_judgedeath3]

Warthunder, unlike world of tanks: dont make up the stats on the guns and armour on tanks thankfully and they stick to historical values as best as they can.
But combat mission takes their numbers from archives and research.
And hilary is the nr 1 writer on german tanks and not impossible he is wrong but with the numbers you give then panzer III shouldnt have issues with taking out T-34s, which they had as they had to hit the turret and the turret ring to be sur eof a knock out hit, hit the hull and it will bounce.

Saw that penetration data is from wikipedia and there anyone can add data until someone else changes it.

Found this on bundesarchive, note: its same angle as wikipedia: 30 degrees, have to remember the penetration is almost halved when its 60% degrees slope:

5.0cm PzGr. 39 L/60(AP)	50mm 2.02Kg 830M/Sec
Quoted Penetration 59mm@500m/30°
Range(Mtr)	100	200	400	800	1200	1600	2000	2400
Flight Time(Secs)	0.12	0.25	0.52	1.15	1.9	2.84	4.02	5.57
Penetration(mm)	73	71	68	62	56	50	44	38
Hit Probability(%)	98	98	98	96	74	34	15	3

 

5.0cm PzGr. 40 L/60(APCR)	50mm 0.98Kg 1198M/Sec
Quoted Penetration 86mm@500m/30°
Range(Mtr)	100	200	400	800	1200	1600	2000	2400
Flight Time(Secs)	0.09	0.18	0.37	0.83	1.42	2.19	3.26	4.84
Penetration(mm)	75	73	70	62	55	47	39	32
Hit Probability(%)	98	98	98	98	88	60	25	8

 

5cm Sprgr Patr(HE)	50mm 1.78Kg 550M/Sec					0.165Kg explosive
Maximum Range 2650 Mtr
Range(Mtr)	1000	2000	3000	4000	5000	6000	7000	8000
Flight Time(Secs)	2.27	6.06	13.66	36.51
Infantry lethal radius	12 mtr	Infantry incapacitating radius						24 mtr
Tank damage blast radius	1 mtr	Tank Roof Penetration						0 mm

[LachenKrieg]

11 minutes ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

Warthunder, unlike world of tanks: dont make up the stats on the guns and armour on tanks thankfully and they stick to historical values as best as they can.
But combat mission takes their numbers from archives and research.
And hilary is the nr 1 writer on german tanks and not impossible he is wrong but with the numbers you give then panzer III shouldnt have issues with taking out T-34s, which they had as they had to hit the turret and the turret ring to be sur eof a knock out hit, hit the hull and it will bounce.

Saw that penetration data is from wikipedia and there anyone can add data until someone else changes it.

Found this on bundesarchive, note: its same angle as wikipedia: 30 degrees, have to remember the penetration is almost halved when its 60% degrees slope:

5.0cm PzGr. 39 L/60(AP)	50mm 2.02Kg 830M/Sec
Quoted Penetration 59mm@500m/30°
Range(Mtr)	100	200	400	800	1200	1600	2000	2400
Flight Time(Secs)	0.12	0.25	0.52	1.15	1.9	2.84	4.02	5.57
Penetration(mm)	73	71	68	62	56	50	44	38
Hit Probability(%)	98	98	98	96	74	34	15	3

 

5.0cm PzGr. 40 L/60(APCR)	50mm 0.98Kg 1198M/Sec
Quoted Penetration 86mm@500m/30°
Range(Mtr)	100	200	400	800	1200	1600	2000	2400
Flight Time(Secs)	0.09	0.18	0.37	0.83	1.42	2.19	3.26	4.84
Penetration(mm)	75	73	70	62	55	47	39	32
Hit Probability(%)	98	98	98	98	88	60	25	8

 

5cm Sprgr Patr(HE)	50mm 1.78Kg 550M/Sec					0.165Kg explosive
Maximum Range 2650 Mtr
Range(Mtr)	1000	2000	3000	4000	5000	6000	7000	8000
Flight Time(Secs)	2.27	6.06	13.66	36.51
Infantry lethal radius	12 mtr	Infantry incapacitating radius						24 mtr
Tank damage blast radius	1 mtr	Tank Roof Penetration						0 mm

I enlarged a block of text to make sure we are talking about the same thing. Actually no, if you look closer you will see that the data I posted shows exactly that the PzIII could not take out a T34 frontally. What I find interesting about the data you just posted here, is that there is almost no difference between AP, and APCR when the latter had almost twice the muzzle velocity. There is only like a 2mm difference at 100, 200, and 400m. I somehow find that hard to believe. Are you sure your not looking at data for the L/42? The L/42 and L/60 are both 5cm guns, but they used different munitions with quite different performance. BTW, what WarThunder PzIII model were you using?

 

But anyway, these are the references to the data I posted:

 

For the L/60:

 

Ankerstjerne, Christian. "Armor Penetration Table". PanzerWorld.com. Taken from:

1. JENTZ, Thomas L. & DOYLE, Hilary Louis. Panzer Tracts No. 3-3 - Panzerkampfwagen III : Ausf.J, L, M, und N - development and production from 1941 to 1943. Boyds, MD : Panzer Tracts, 2009. 88 p. ISBN 0-9815382-4-X.

For the Pak 38:

       1. Bird, Lorrin; Lingston, Robert (2001). World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery. Albany, NY USA: Overmatch Press. p. 61. OCLC 71143143

 

 

 

 

[SCG_SchleiferGER]

I could find these:

                      m             100   500 1000 1500     V0 in m/s

5cm PzGrPatr        :       67,    57,     44,     34          835

5cm PzGrPatr 39   :       69,    59,     48,     38          835

5cm PzgrPatr 40    :     130,    74,       0,       0        1180

5cm PzGrPatr 40/1:     121,    78,     44,       0        1130

 

Plate angled at 30 deg from the vertical or 60 deg form the horizontal (standard German testing conditions apply)   

Table was published in 12.12.1942 from the Waffenamt

 

Then there is "WW2 Armor Ballistics and Gunnery" giving these numbers:

 

The problem with testing done from the different countries is that each one did  pen tests differently. That's why WW2 Armor Ballistics and Gunnery exists.

The book aims to get all the penetration data under unified testing criteria. (I think it was the US one, but I am not sure)

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by SchleiferGER

[LachenKrieg]

3 hours ago, SchleiferGER said:

I could find these:

                      m             100   500 1000 1500     V0 in m/s

5cm PzGrPatr        :       67,    57,     44,     34          835

5cm PzGrPatr 39   :       69,    59,     48,     38          835

5cm PzgrPatr 40    :     130,    74,       0,       0        1180

5cm PzGrPatr 40/1:     121,    78,     44,       0        1130

 

Plate angled at 30 deg from the vertical or 60 deg form the horizontal (standard German testing conditions apply)   

Table was published in 12.12.1942 from the Waffenamt

 

Then there is "WW2 Armor Ballistics and Gunnery" giving these numbers:

 

The problem with testing done from the different countries is that each one did  pen tests differently. That's why WW2 Armor Ballistics and Gunnery exists.

The book aims to get all the penetration data under unified testing criteria. (I think it was the US one, but I am not sure)

 

 

And it also makes sense in that it is at least what you would expect to see if you were comparing AP shells with a sub caliber APCR round. That is what it was designed to do. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to trade critical mass of the penetrating projectile for no effect.

[LachenKrieg]

Adding these link out of interest. Although the T-34 was effectively immune to the 5cm L/60, the story of armor protection vs penetrating power of a shell relies on a myriad of factors. Its interesting to review how the different shells were manufactured, and how the different designs affected the contact angle and velocity the shell breaks up at, and how that plays into its penetrating power. 

 

https://community.battlefront.com/topic/56514-german-tests-against-t34-armor/

 

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=216079