OK, Something is wrong with Sherman vs. PZK IVG Mechanics

[ShampooX]

So last night and tonight I was on the Finnish Server in a PZ4.  In two instances I dispatched Shermans at about 800 and 1,100 meters respectively.  Both taken out with Pzgr 39 APHE.  Last night's was an angled frontal and side engagement that took app. 10 rounds to eliminate, this after a teammate in a PZ3 had already dumped several rounds into it before being destroyed himself.  I said "OK  I know Shermans can be a tough out, but that was a ridiculous, maybe it was just the angling."

 

Tonight I took better notes:  I was exactly 1,100 meters out, wounded the Sherman which proceeded to drive away from me slowly at a slight angle, and up a slight incline, with it's rear completed exposed.  I shot 10 rounds into it's side, rear and turret as it's superman commander survived each one only to be able to pepper me back with .50cal.  10 shots - 10 hits!! (it might have died on #9, I will admit).

 

Wikipedia says this about the PZK4 weaponry: Initially, the KwK 40 gun was mounted with a single-chamber, ball-shaped muzzle brake, which provided just under 50% of the recoil system's braking ability.^[32] Firing the Panzergranate 39, the KwK 40 L/43 could penetrate 77 mm (3.03 in) of steel armor at a range of 1,830 m (6,000 ft).    And here they are really talking about the F2 variant barrel, so we know the G variant in TC had a little better penetration than this even.

 

IL-2's own data on the Sherman armor indicate a 38mm rear hull thickness, thus at 1,100 meters the Pzgr39 should have easily destroyed the entire tank, the engine and the crew in no more than three shots, and the even the side turret armor of 51mm should not have withstood more than two direct hits.

 

So it's one of two things: either the ballistic penetration on the Pzgr39 is off, or the - and most likely - the armor and angle calculations on the Sherman are too "OP". And I just say this because normally the PZ4 can take out a T34 in just a couple shots. 

 

And I get it.... this is kind of a dicky post, I don't want to be that guy....but IL-2 does such a great job on the technical aspects of the flight sim, you would think it could get another look here.  I mean if the ballistic models can't handle it maybe we just make a rule that 5 solid direct hits on a Sherman from a 75mm barrel will immediately result in it's end.  Any tank for that matter.

 

Because there ain't a single Sherman in the history of the world that took 10+ direct hits from a 75mm AT gun and not only drove away, but fought back while doing so.

Edited April 16, 2021 by 11thPanzer_Pete

[M3Grant]

5 hours ago, 11thPanzer_Pete said:

I mean if the ballistic models can't handle it maybe we just make a rule that 5 solid direct hits on a Sherman from a 75mm barrel will immediately result in it's end.

I like your post, and it should be checked out, but this is the wrong way to fix it. 5 HE shells to the side or front armor wouldn't hurt it to badly, but those are solid, direct hits. 5 AP rounds in the same place wouldn't do a whole lot, but it would insta-kill a Sherman with this suggestion. Overall, the ballistic modeling should be looked at, but it should not be fixed like this.

[LachenKrieg]

6 hours ago, 11thPanzer_Pete said:

So last night and tonight I was on the Finnish Server in a PZ4.  In two instances I dispatched Shermans at about 800 and 1,100 meters respectively.  Both taken out with Pzgr 39 APHE.  Last night's was an angled frontal and side engagement that took app. 10 rounds to eliminate, this after a teammate in a PZ3 had already dumped several rounds into it before being destroyed himself.  I said "OK  I know Shermans can be a tough out, but that was a ridiculous, maybe it was just the angling."

 

Tonight I took better notes:  I was exactly 1,100 meters out, wounded the Sherman which proceeded to drive away from me slowly at a slight angle, and up a slight incline, with it's rear completed exposed.  I shot 10 rounds into it's side, rear and turret as it's superman commander survived each one only to be able to pepper me back with .50cal.  10 shots - 10 hits!! (it might have died on #9, I will admit).

 

Wikipedia says this about the PZK4 weaponry: Initially, the KwK 40 gun was mounted with a single-chamber, ball-shaped muzzle brake, which provided just under 50% of the recoil system's braking ability.^[32] Firing the Panzergranate 39, the KwK 40 L/43 could penetrate 77 mm (3.03 in) of steel armor at a range of 1,830 m (6,000 ft).    And here they are really talking about the F2 variant barrel, so we know the G variant in TC had a little better penetration than this even.

 

IL-2's own data on the Sherman armor indicate a 38mm rear hull thickness, thus at 1,100 meters the Pzgr39 should have easily destroyed the entire tank, the engine and the crew in no more than three shots, and the even the side turret armor of 51mm should not have withstood more than two direct hits.

 

So it's one of two things: either the ballistic penetration on the Pzgr39 is off, or the - and most likely - the armor and angle calculations on the Sherman are too "OP". And I just say this because normally the PZ4 can take out a T34 in just a couple shots. 

 

And I get it.... this is kind of a dicky post, I don't want to be that guy....but IL-2 does such a great job on the technical aspects of the flight sim, you would think it could get another look here.  I mean if the ballistic models can't handle it maybe we just make a rule that 5 solid direct hits on a Sherman from a 75mm barrel will immediately result in it's end.  Any tank for that matter.

 

Because there ain't a single Sherman in the history of the world that took 10+ direct hits from a 75mm AT gun and not only drove away, but fought back while doing so.

The turret on the Sherman is a know weakness, especially from the back. The same goers for the rear hull. Depending on the angle of your shot, the chances that the turret crew survived the first direct hit on the back of the turret are slim. The other point to consider here that makes your observations even more credible is the fact that the retreating Sherman had to traverse a slight incline. This would in effect reduce the angle of its armor making penetration more likely. I agree, the Dev's should revisit the ballistics model to make sure things are the way they should be.

 

43 minutes ago, M3Grant said:

I like your post, and it should be checked out, but this is the wrong way to fix it. 5 HE shells to the side or front armor wouldn't hurt it to badly, but those are solid, direct hits. 5 AP rounds in the same place wouldn't do a whole lot, but it would insta-kill a Sherman with this suggestion. Overall, the ballistic modeling should be looked at, but it should not be fixed like this.

Yeah the only way to address this is to correct what ever is no right with the ballistics model.

[M3Grant]

I wish we were able to watch a replay of the shell penetration a certain time after you leave the server in order to see what happened with the rounds, it would help to work out bugs with the pen mechanics. I like that it's vague in battle, but I would also like to see how you got killed.

[M3Grant]

The only reason I can think of for the survival of the tank is if it hit in the rear of the tank and the engine absorbs the shrapnel or if it over-penetrates the turret but with all the shots, a good number wouldn't do that.

[BlitzPig_EL]

"Overpen".  God I hate gamer speak.

Turrets are very confined spaces, filled with equipment of all sorts, and the meat servos that operate it.

 

If an AP round were to completely penetrate the turret, and exit it, the spalling alone would shred the crew, destroy many of the various mechanisms, and render the tank combat ineffective.  I have not even taken into account the near molten metal bits that could ignite the ready ammo, not to mention the pressure wave that would do wonders for the meat bags that are working in there.

 

Overpen indeed.