Jump to content

Should an IL2, at a 60 degree angle be able to penetrate the top of a Ferdinand with either 23, or 37 MM cannons ?


JG1_Wittmann
 Share

Recommended Posts

JG1_Wittmann

SO I was on Finnish and having a very good mission.  5 tanks destroyed.  Others moving on the flag were killed so I lumbered my Ferdinand that way.   Now I saw an IL 2 approach  and the angle was 60 degrees or more.  Buttoned up my hatches and  had my gun destroyed, driver and commander killed.    I don't believe this should be possible  for either the 23mm  or the 37mm.   I do believe the devs have not properly modeled the 37mm recoil making it way to accurate but anyways,  I think the penetration figures are way to high for such a high AOA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
Posted (edited)

Yes, the IL2 should be able to penetrate the top of a Ferdinand with 37mm cannons. The top armor on a Ferdinand is a measly 30mm, whilst the NS-37 is apparently able to penetrate up to 40mm of armour at a 45 degree angle. This being Soviet penetration statistics that's a 75% chance (As opposed to the 50% chance the Americans used)

Edited by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG1_Wittmann

So the 37 should  be able to penetrate accordingly,   the 23mm ?   In my experience,   many of the IL2 flyers  prefer the 23mm  over the 37,  what figures of penetration  does this weapon have ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
Posted (edited)

You can look at your sortie log and see what arnament the IL2 that shot you was using by clicking on the people that shot you's names.

 

 The IL 2 was packing 23mm with mixed AP-HE rounds, which does make penetration far less likely. 23 should be capable of penetrating 25mm of armour at a straight angle, 75% of the time. So that doesn't mean that punching through 30mm at an angle is impossible (or to cause spalling), it's just far less likely.  That leaves room for perforation of the barrel, luck and  observer bias beyond the gun being over modelled.

 

However, it is also notable that the IL2 only got some damage in. The kill of your character is actually attributed to an Su-122. Are you sure the IL-2 didn't just distract you whilst the heavy gun went in for the kill?

Edited by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG1_Wittmann
Posted (edited)

I am aware of the sortie log.   In it,  which is not a complete story,    you do not see that I was attacked  by the IL2  from a rear quarter position.  That destroyed my gun,  ( very highly improbable, even from the front )     lost a driver and injured commander.   That was  well before the su122 got involved,  I had no gun   so  no chance,  it's not like you can run with a ferdinand     Now lets parse out what the su 122 was able to do,   killed me on it's first shot with HE.  Destroyed the tank.   Again, very highly improbable.   Yes, there is anecdotal evidence that the concussive force  of an HE round from SU 122's   took out  a tiger  at kursk from very close range due to gun innaccuracy.  I do not believe any testing was done to verify this.  However,  the popular story,   involved the concussive force being able to dislodge a tiger turret.   That is how it was claimed to be destroyed.   Now,   the Ferdinand has no turret to dislodge so I wonder how   it it that 1 he round,  was able to destroy the ferdinand  when there doesn't seem to exist any factual basis for this happening ?   Did I just so happen to hit the random cycle in the dm model that said   100% destroyed, from a round not capable of doing so ?  The Tiger's demise from a dislodged turret does not apply in this instance.  I have not read, other than the TIger at kursk having a turret dislodged, any other accounts of an SU 122 HE round taking out a heavy tank,   if you know of other events,  please do share

3 hours ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

23mm with mixed AP-HE rounds, which does make penetration far less likely. 23 should be capable of penetrating 25mm of armour at a straight angle, 75% of the time. So that doesn't mean that punching through 30mm at an angle is impossible (or to cause spalling),

 

What your figures mean is that 25mm, straight on  can be assured, according to the test firing  3 out of 4 times.   at a 60 deg angle from vertical,   or even 45,  you have an effective thickness  of from  @44 to 60mm.    It means that there is virtually no chance at all   this gun could do any damage to the ferdinad  from any angle  except possible track damage.   The spalling nonsense   does not fly in this instance so let's not try and create unicorn scenarios  here.  Read my above post,   neither the IL2, or the su122 firing HE  is capable of destroying the Ferdinand,  unless you have evidence, other than the tiger having a turret dislodged to support that.   As far as the DM being accurate,  all anyone has to do is look at how the DM treats  the german 30mm mine round in game,  vs all of the photos and evidence clearly showing it is a 1 shot kill round,   and you can see that programming  " changes " have been made to certain things to make them less effective.  Knowing that,  it is not a stretch  to see  the same decision being made to make things more effective.   ALso,  look at  the fact that a person can ram your tank with theirs,  and destroy you.   Now I know that is a popular old wives tale  among the soviets,  but  there  is nothing to back that up, or verify it is possible.  But,  the developers  apparently took it to be a fact and made it so in game

Edited by JG1_Wittmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
Posted (edited)

The AP capabilities of the SU-122's HE round are listed ingame: https://aergistal.github.io/il2/vehicles/su122.html  - It lists the Direct Hit Armour Penetration as 44mm. This is well within the confines of being able to annihilate a Ferdinand if it hits in the areas where the Ferdinand only has 30, 25 or 20mm of armour. Can you conclusively say that you were not hit in those areas?

 

Also, you know, your tank was already damaged by comrade Bob, who alongside his 23mm cannons was also carrying ROFS-132s and bombs. Fnnish log these days can tell us what guns you were hit by. But the log tells us: You were not damaged by any guns. The damage must have been done through a missile.

 

Like don't misunderstand the task you have here: You have your anecdote, with your observer bias already not being supported by the log, against the mountain of historical research that has gone into this game. I haven't got access to it and I'm not getting paid for this, but if you want a flight/tank/gun model discussion you got to be detailed and accurate. Burden of proof is on you here.

Edited by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG1_Wittmann

So,   the armor areas you mention,   top and bottom,   we know that if the su hit me anywhere at all, the result would have been the same, front, side, etc   the IL2  did not hit me with rockets, or bombs.   I find  it interesting,  that it is always  our burden to provide information that the developers  already possess but never divulge.  What information do the devs have  that contradicts  1,  30mm mine round being a 1 shot kill vs an enemy fighter.  What evidence do they have  that says if this su122 had rammed me with his vehicle, he would have also destroyed me. I have had exactly this happen online, my tiger burst into flames,  like a bad story they heard from those fools on the history channel . That the IL2 guns   can do damage that they were not actually capable of doing ?   You yourself posted a figure of 25mm for the 23mm,   no angle.  That makes it penetrating 30 mm at a high angle  impossible, and yet, in game,IL2's damage tigers and ferdinands all the time with them, injure and kill crew members, at high from vertical angles.  A 23mm  round would not destroy the ferdinands gun,  yet it did.  IT seems like some like to rush   to the dev defense   even though  what they themselves posted contradicted what happened in game with damage.  I started this thread asking if the IL2@ 37mm could penetrate the top of the ferdinand 60 degrees from vertical.  You say yes 40mm at 45.  I  see that in your link you posted it is written up to 40mm at 45 degrees.  The way that line is written  tells me,   it is a guess,  but most likely a fabrication.  If the gun could penetrate 40mm at 45 degrees,   that is a 28mm plate   would the # be @65  at a 30 degree plate angle   That's the angle russians and germans tested at, correct ? )   They tested at vertical, 0,  or 30 deg from vertical  and measured the effective penetration.  So, 30 degrees  is  15 % I believe higher than  vertical.  45 degrees is 41.4 % higher, and 60 deg is 2 times higher.   What is the Vertical, or 30 deg #  for the 37mm gun in the IL2 ?  I have not been able to find that

 
 

.  No tests for armor penetration say up to this mm at up to a certain amount of degrees.  40mm at up to 45 degrees.  At a 30 degree angle  effective @ 45,  at a 45 degree angle  @ 56mm effective.  Tests have been printed  with 2 angles,  60  from horizontal and 90 from horizontal or zero and 30 from vertical.  I have never seen one from ww2 that says from 45, the armor thickness from 30 to 45 deg  is 20 % more.  From vertical to 45  is 40% more.Vertical to 60 degrees is double.  This 40mm up to 45 deg is a total red herring, and telling,  as they have no other figures for the round in there such as 30 deg or 0, which  is the angle that AP  were tested at.  If the Developers of IL2 GB used this book as a source,  they used  a faulty #, and with such a flimsy line put in, that would call into question the contents of the entire book not backed up by actual printed material from the tests themselves.  Which is why the IL2  with the 37  stopped trying to take out heavy tanks as the AOA had to be too high for them to penetrate the armor.    

 

 

1)  can you drive a tank or spg into another  of equal size  at 10mph or less and destroy it         (irl, no,  but also irl   10mph or less into a tree will not disable a tank)

2) can a gun that penetrates 25mm of armor  at a zero degree angle, penetrate 30mm at 45 to 60 degrees.  ( no, it cannot,   those are 46mm to 60mm effective)

 

The only answer anyone ever gets from the devs, or the dev fan boy crew is this was thoroughly researched.Well, if this link or book was used as a source that explains alot unless they only referred to actual ww2 test document scans in the book    Why don't we have   Evidence, that an SU122   going 10mph   can run into a tiger and destroy it, because there is no evidence, other than anecdotal(stories, wives tales)   OR a 30mm mine shell hitting a fighter fuselage,  and somehow doing less damage, always, than the photo evidence posted on the forums !   Russians did not kill tanks driving their t34's etc into tigers at kursk,   I hate to let you in on that,  it's a lie, a fabrication.  If the devs believe the T34 drove into tanks, tigers,  at kursk  to destroy them, or disable them,   then all of the  things in the game that are wrong,  now begin to make sense

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
5 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

but most likely a fabrication

lol

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The iL2 didn't destroy you? 

The Su122 did.

 

He maybe penetrated a single round or did some rocket damage but your cheeks got clapped by a 122mm HE shell.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG1_Wittmann
38 minutes ago, Denum said:

The iL2 didn't destroy you? 

The Su122 did.

 

He maybe penetrated a single round or did some rocket damage but your cheeks got clapped by a 122mm HE shell.

If you read my posts,  thoroughly,  I know the IL2 did not destroy me.  What I do know is that he took out my gun/gun optic, killed my driver and my commander. At that point, with a vehicle capable of 8-10 kph offroad, and no friendlies anywhere near,  it's over. The Su122  killed me.  Now there is no documentation saying a 23mm gun, on the IL2 can penetrate any of the armor on the Ferdinand,  unless he hit the few small areas below @25mm ( maybe over driver?)  while in a 90 degree dive.  He was not in a 90 degree dive in front but a shallow dive,  maybe 30 degrees  from the side/rear quarter.  He made 1 pass.  He did not hit with rocket or bomb that I noticed.  There could be an error in the game information.  Now because a gun isn't listed does not mean it was a rocket or bomb  as the disclaimer is there could be errors.  I did not notice a bomb or rocket hit but did hear gun hits. THe gun optic lense cracked first then injuries then gun damaged.  My question is, how does that happen from a rear/quarter shot  with cannons if that is what it was ?  Now the Su122  figures for armor penetration, listed in game,  ( I would say not verified )   is over 40mm,  for a direct hit.   So that could only mean a direct hit on the roof, or driver roof,  and that could have happened, as what we see isn't always  what is in game especially mp.   I don't question  the lottery hit on the roof with the first shot in game.  In reality,  the 122 gun was so innaccurate it was not used to engage armor at long ranges.  With that being said, a short range shot,  would most likely not have hit the roof.  In reality, the first shot probably would not have hit at all since the accuracy was very poor and not repeatable unless the range was short.  The  IL2GB SU 122  does not suffer the RL innaccuracy and is often used to engage enemy armor at long ranges

1 hour ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

lol

Where is the test chart ?   Tests were 0 and 30 degrees,   russian and german.  Difference being amount of round or fragments of round that went through.  Test data is not a written line saying 40mm at 45 degrees,  which is doubtful, as the real data would be  at 0  or 30 degrees.   If there is a unicorn test out there at 45 degrees for this gun  there would be test data.  Now as the  top ( where commander sits )  is 30mm,  and at 45 degrees would offer 42 or 43 mm of protection,  that is right at the edge, just over since he says "up to 40mm at 45 deg".   So in this situation I posed a hypothetical, even the 37mm would not penetrate at a 30 deg dive as the 60 deg angle to top would mean  60mm effective, well beyond the capability of this guns  "stated" performance.  I'm sure there are others in the forum that have had an IL2  take them out or damage greatly their tank with the 23mm when it should not be happening in reality unless the pilot  is in a hard dive down   not a shallow slope

 

You should be posting the LOL  directed at the damage model to the fact that an su122 ran into a tiger  and brewed it up at 10mph or less. I would agree that is very laughable,  just like when you hit a tree or invisible object and damage occurs over 10kph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

APWVO_Jorqell

You were obviously damaged by a rocket. You were the first target engaged by an IL-2 with rocket armament, and it would be extremely unlikely for him not to fire rockets at you.

 

In fact, you can see it from the plane's sortie log. The plane made only 4 explosive attacks on frontline targets despite carrying 6 bombs/rockets at the start of the mission. It spent 2 bombs or rockets on something else - in this case your vehicle - before reaching the front line.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NoelGallagher
Posted (edited)

then to be fair 

20mm cannon should be able to penetrate most of the aliied tanks roof 

but it's not presented in the game 

 

and i get the fishy feeling about grizzly 

you are the kind of guy that allied must win everytime 

i studied psychology back in my college days 

and what i learned is that human emotion dictates over one's rational mind 100% of the time

and it all comes from core belief that generates that emotion

many of the time human mind deny to look over the otherside 

and trying to hold on one's beleif desperately by gathering all kinds of physical evidence and opinions from others 

so it can perpetuate it's own ground 

whenever i see any kind of community realated with ww2 subject 

i see a lot of people that holds the beleif that nazi is the only evil ever made in the human history 

and deny to look what allied have done 

i'm not sympathizing or justifying what nazi germany had done in the past 

but if we want to understand the history with the rational mind and the logic 

then you should put aside the ones pre-judgement and approach it from neutral point of view

there's no good guys and bad guys in war 

that's what government want you to beleive 

so in that way they can gather the troops and justify their war 

i've been in the military not becasue i wanted to 

but from where i live it's a duty to serve 

and the first thing they do when you get in to the training center is propaganda and

brainwashing 

the entire logic is based on good and bad 

only fool beleives such exist in REALITY

 

Edited by NoelGallagher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
Posted (edited)

 

2 hours ago, NoelGallagher said:

then to be fair 

20mm cannon should be able to penetrate most of the aliied tanks roof 

but it's not presented in the game 

Actually no. Most soviet tanks in game have 20 to 30mm top armour, which appears to be beyond the specification of the 151s dedicated AP round (which the Axis planes in the game do not carry to begin with). It's a gun for anti-fighter duty, not anti-tank duty, unlike the IL2's gun pods.

(I actually would be interested to see if you can penetrate a T34 1942 or Sherman from the top-rear with the 20mm, but I never see Axis pilots hunt tanks on Finnish)

 

2 hours ago, NoelGallagher said:

and i get the fishy feeling about grizzly 

you are the kind of guy that allied must win everytime 

i studied psychology back in my college days 

and what i learned is that human emotion dictates over one's rational mind 100% of the time

and it all comes from core belief that generates that emotion

many of the time human mind deny to look over the otherside 

and trying to hold on one's beleif desperately by gathering all kinds of physical evidence and opinions from others 

so it can perpetuate it's own ground 

whenever i see any kind of community realated with ww2 subject 

i see a lot of people that holds the beleif that nazi is the only evil ever made in the human history 

and deny to look what allied have done 

i'm not sympathizing or justifying what nazi germany had done in the past 

but if we want to understand the history with the rational mind and the logic 

then you should put aside the ones pre-judgement and approach it from neutral point of view

there's no good guys and bad guys in war 

that's what government want you to beleive 

so in that way they can gather the troops and justify their war 

i've been in the military not becasue i wanted to 

but from where i live it's a duty to serve 

and the first thing they do when you get in to the training center is propaganda and

brainwashing 

the entire logic is based on good and bad 

only fool beleives such exist in REALITY

Oh come on Noel, this thread is just someone who named himself after an SS propaganda icon whining about 'realism' whilst he's actually just angry that his tank got blown up. I mean, hell, we have the logs, and the logs say he wasn't even damaged by the guns he's complaining about. You could very easily turn this around: The Ferdinand is Good but it was destroyed by things that are Bad therefore games must be Bad - and you'd be far closer to the actual reality then you are right now.

Edited by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG1_Wittmann
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

 

Oh come on Noel, this thread is just someone who named himself after an SS propaganda icon whining about 'realism' whilst he's actually just angry that his tank got blown up. I mean, hell, we have the logs, and the logs say he wasn't even damaged by the guns he's complaining about. You could very easily turn this around: The Ferdinand is Good but it was destroyed by things that are Bad therefore games must be Bad - and you'd be far closer to the actual reality then you are right now.

Who  in the thread named themself after a nazi propaganda icon ?    As far as whining,   I'm not whining,  and I don't have an issue with my tank being blown up.  I get blown up all the time   on the finnish server,   mainly due to lack of friendly  air support to suppress the  russian  ground attackers.   This time,   I took the slowest vehicle in game across a very open area  and paid the price for a very foolish tactical decision.

 

Now what weapon actually delivered what  is  not concrete  but just different people, including myself guessing.  I heard  cannons rounds,   I can't rule out a rocket or a bomb from the IL2.   The SU122  delivered,  a lottery win shot,   I'm going to have to guess  it landed on the roof.   His log shows he fired 2 shots,  and destroyed 2 tanks.   MY comment to that is,  the 122 was not accurate,  that's not anecdotal, it's fact.  So,  if the game realistically  "simulates" the 122's poor accuracy  at ranges over 500m,  it makes it very hard to explain how he was able to kill 2 tanks, with 2 shots  from long range.  It could not have been close range, or the round would not have been able to deliver a hit to the roof of the ferdinand.   That's  kind of a conundrum,  he must have been closer if the gun is modeled even remotely close to accurately,   and at a range close enough to be accurate enough there is no chance the round detonates on the roof  of the ferdinand.  That could only be accomplished at long range, dropping the

shot on top.

 

The below link  will show anyone interested,  the amount of extensive research that went into  the  tank damage model :

 

 

Now,   I don't make alot of videos as I don't have  the urge, or the time.  The last set of videos I made,  again,  showed glowing examples  of the tank dm research  when an f34 gun,  destroyed the jagdpanzer IV  from 1000M   when it was not capable of doing so.   I made a few videos of that,  and also how poor the german AFV's  controlled by AI  are at hitting a target.  I don't know about you, but when I come up against  russian  ai,  they seem to be able to hit me  very rapidly, all of the time.  That video I made showed 15  Jagdpanzer IV's  not only unable to destroy 2 T34's at 1000m  they none of them were able to hit the T34's  and eventually all ran out of ammo.  The DM got changed after I posted my first  JP 4 video showing the F34 gun destroying them, when it was incapable of doing so at that range.  Strangely enough,  the dm  fix  was not long in coming.   As I find more time,  I will make more videos of various AFV's and their weapons etc  and will post any oddities I find on youtube so they can be enjoyed by all .

Edited by JG1_Wittmann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NoelGallagher
19 hours ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

 

Actually no. Most soviet tanks in game have 20 to 30mm top armour, which appears to be beyond the specification of the 151s dedicated AP round (which the Axis planes in the game do not carry to begin with). It's a gun for anti-fighter duty, not anti-tank duty, unlike the IL2's gun pods.

(I actually would be interested to see if you can penetrate a T34 1942 or Sherman from the top-rear with the 20mm, but I never see Axis pilots hunt tanks on Finnish)

 

Oh come on Noel, this thread is just someone who named himself after an SS propaganda icon whining about 'realism' whilst he's actually just angry that his tank got blown up. I mean, hell, we have the logs, and the logs say he wasn't even damaged by the guns he's complaining about. You could very easily turn this around: The Ferdinand is Good but it was destroyed by things that are Bad therefore games must be Bad - and you'd be far closer to the actual reality then you are right now.

yes that's what i'm saying also

don't you see? every person ever in the human world (including me)

basically only see what they want to beleive 

you might alreayd know(since i think you have done quite a research on ww2 subject by your own)

every person can dig out the subject as deep as they can

and find the evidence and link with their own reasoning 

and present it as a logical fact 

you know what? even current model of newtonian physics which generally regarded as SOLID FACT is made out of full of assumptions and guess work at its core

(it's all came from the conept of gravity and noone i mean not a single physicist actually know what it really means nor they can pin it down and lock it in to solid concpet well they think they do but it's still a vague conept)

let alone physics 

history?

you can do whatever and make it look like a fact 

so my point is if you are aware of this 

then you know this kind of argument is pointless (unless you enjoy it? haha)

 

and if you straighten up your logic and reason in your mind 

you should call the bernard montgomery and the dwight eisenhower as allied propaganda icon

if the michael wittmann is nazi propanganda icon in your mind

Edited by NoelGallagher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
4 hours ago, NoelGallagher said:

and if you straighten up your logic and reason in your mind 

you should call the bernard montgomery and the dwight eisenhower as allied propaganda icon

if the michael wittmann is nazi propanganda icon in your mind

 

Michael Wittmann has a cult status that does not match his achievements. He's not even the most succesful Axis tank commander, we only know about him because of attempts to paint the Waffen SS in a favourable light after the war. This is a crucial distinction because Eisenhower and Montgomery are widely studied historical figures beyond their cult image.

 

But ofc. you are right. Bernard Montgomery and Dwight Eisenhower have plenty of propaganda behind them, and critical analysis of these figures remains necessary. But crucially, for the purposes of a discussion on an internet forum, I'm not going to assume that someone who named themself after an Allied general will be entirely neutral about their assessments with regards to the Allies,  just like I'm not going to assume that someone who named himself after a SS propaganda icon is going to be neutral about the performance of Nazi equipment.

Edited by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NoelGallagher
13 minutes ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

 

Michael Wittmann has a cult status that does not match his achievements. He's not even the most succesful Axis tank commander, we only know about him because of attempts to paint the Waffen SS in a favourable light after the war. This is a crucial distinction because Eisenhower and Montgomery are widely studied historical figures beyond their cult image.

 

But ofc. you are right. Bernard Montgomery and Dwight Eisenhower have plenty of propaganda behind them, and critical analysis of these figures remains necessary. But crucially, for the purposes of a discussion on an internet forum, I'm not going to assume that someone who named themself after an Allied general will be entirely neutral about their assessments with regards to the Allies,  just like I'm not going to assume that someone who named himself after a SS propaganda icon is going to be neutral about the performance of Nazi equipment.

😎 awesome

Edited by NoelGallagher
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
20 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The last set of videos I made,  again,  showed glowing examples  of the tank dm research  when an f34 gun,  destroyed the jagdpanzer IV  from 1000M   when it was not capable of doing so


Interesting you would say that, since the Jagdpanzer IV is not a drivable tank in this game. The Panzer IV is. It should also be noted that Soviet firing trails indicated that an F34 could penetrate a Panzer IV from the front at 1970 meters. The British were able to penetrate the Panzer IV from the front with a 2-pounder.

 

"But wait!" Attentive readers might now object. "The Panzer IV in game is the G variant, which was up-armoured to solve this issue!". And you'd be right! However, there are two issues with this:
1) The 30mm of additional armour plate added to the front is, well, an additional plate. It's not a solid 80mm block of armour, it's a 30mm "shield" in front of a 50mm piece of armour. This affects how the armour performs negatively.

2) Whilst the front of the Panzer IV's hull was upgraded, the turret was not - the armour remained the same. This is reflected in the ingame data, which states that the penetration power of an AP-firing F34 at 1000 meters is 61mm of penetration, which is beyond the measly 50mm in the Panzer IV G's turret front.

 

"But wait!" other attentive readers might now object. "That would imply that the T-34 is actually superior to the Panzer IV for a long time until these upgrades came around" - and you'd be right! The T34 was a way better tank then the Nazis had anticipated. Communications intercepted by the Britsh from the Nazis indicated this, as do reports from the front. The issues with the T34 came all down to Stalin's Great Purge of Soviet ranks, as well as just in general being completely unprepared for an invasion (itself a result of aforementioned Stalin hamstringing his own army). T34 tank crews had terrible training and dismal communication abilities and the Soviet's logistics wasn't up to snuff getting all these quite decent tanks to the frontline properly (a similar issue would plague the Nazis in the later stages of the war). When the Soviets started learning from their mistakes and were properly mobilized (the soviet army was practically outnumbered in 1941, contrary to popular belief), that changed around, though by then the Nazis started fielding their heavy tanks.

Edited by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adastra99

Hearing cannon rounds wouldn't be unusual even if the rocket was what actually did the damage. Plenty of people have used it to get a aim point reference and hope for a lucky hit, both IRL and in games.

 

Other ways the 122mm shell could've wrecked your day:

-Hit the roof as you said. The slight slope of it makes a shot more likely to graze it, especially if they're in an elevated position.

-Hit the front face of the superstructure where it meets the hull roof over the engine decking. That part of the tank is not super tall and thus a arcing shot that hits it or the superstructure face near it is much more feasible. The Germans seemed to think the engine decking was poorly protected, and they redesigned it along with the other 1944 modifications, which would've happened after Tank Crew's time frame.

-Hit the ground underneath the vehicle and exploded past the thickened forward part, or skipped off the ground to hit it directly.

-Sheer explosive force might've done enough. Especially when the vehicle's already compromised.

 

9 hours ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:


Interesting you would say that, since the Jagdpanzer IV is not a drivable tank in this game. The Panzer IV is. It should also be noted that Soviet firing trails indicated that an F34 could penetrate a Panzer IV from the front at 1970 meters. The British were able to penetrate the Panzer IV from the front with a 2-pounder.

 

"But wait!" Attentive readers might now object. "The Panzer IV in game is the G variant, which was up-armoured to solve this issue!". And you'd be right! However, there are two issues with this:
1) The 30mm of additional armour plate added to the front is, well, an additional plate. It's not a solid 80mm block of armour, it's a 30mm "shield" in front of a 50mm piece of armour. This affects how the armour performs negatively.

2) Whilst the front of the Panzer IV's hull was upgraded, the turret was not - the armour remained the same. This is reflected in the ingame data, which states that the penetration power of an AP-firing F34 at 1000 meters is 61mm of penetration, which is beyond the measly 50mm in the Panzer IV G's turret front.

 

"But wait!" other attentive readers might now object. "That would imply that the T-34 is actually superior to the Panzer IV for a long time until these upgrades came around" - and you'd be right! The T34 was a way better tank then the Nazis had anticipated. Communications intercepted by the Britsh from the Nazis indicated this, as do reports from the front. The issues with the T34 came all down to Stalin's Great Purge of Soviet ranks, as well as just in general being completely unprepared for an invasion (itself a result of aforementioned Stalin hamstringing his own army). T34 tank crews had terrible training and dismal communication abilities and the Soviet's logistics wasn't up to snuff getting all these quite decent tanks to the frontline properly (a similar issue would plague the Nazis in the later stages of the war). When the Soviets started learning from their mistakes and were properly mobilized (the soviet army was practically outnumbered in 1941, contrary to popular belief), that changed around, though by then the Nazis started fielding their heavy tanks.

 

Indeed. The Panzer IV was the epitome of stopgaps. It's impressive that they kept it even remotely viable throughout the whole war, but it shows. And the T-34 was an absolute monster upon its introduction. Though it should be noted that it also suffered from poor visibility and the 2 man turret, reducing the effect of its on-paper abilities. Wasn't solely deployment that hamstrung it. Just goes to show how intimidating those on-paper abilities were, though.

 

The progression of German tanks is very interesting. They started the war with tanks that were, on paper, generally inferior to mediocre, but took advantage of soft factors like crew space, radios, and visibility, combined with good deployment and concentration to defeat much more threatening tanks that did not have those things. Later on, guns got bigger, armor got thicker, but those soft factors that made so much difference were somewhat neglected or surpassed. Not to the extent of early war tanks, but crew ergonomics gets worse, vision provisions stay the same or get worse, economy measures and shortages take their toll. Hell, the last panzer 4s didn't even have power traverse. All while these same things improve in their competitors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCG_OpticFlow
On 7/9/2021 at 1:01 AM, JG1_Wittmann said:

So,   the armor areas you mention,   top and bottom,   we know that if the su hit me anywhere at all, the result would have been the same, front, side, etc   the IL2  did not hit me with rockets, or bombs.   I find  it interesting,  that it is always  our burden to provide information that the developers  already possess but never divulge.  What information do the devs have  that contradicts  1,  30mm mine round being a 1 shot kill vs an enemy fighter.  What evidence do they have  that says if this su122 had rammed me with his vehicle, he would have also destroyed me. I have had exactly this happen online, my tiger burst into flames,  like a bad story they heard from those fools on the history channel . That the IL2 guns   can do damage that they were not actually capable of doing ?   You yourself posted a figure of 25mm for the 23mm,   no angle.  That makes it penetrating 30 mm at a high angle  impossible, and yet, in game,IL2's damage tigers and ferdinands all the time with them, injure and kill crew members, at high from vertical angles.  A 23mm  round would not destroy the ferdinands gun,  yet it did.  IT seems like some like to rush   to the dev defense   even though  what they themselves posted contradicted what happened in game with damage.  I started this thread asking if the IL2@ 37mm could penetrate the top of the ferdinand 60 degrees from vertical.  You say yes 40mm at 45.  I  see that in your link you posted it is written up to 40mm at 45 degrees.  The way that line is written  tells me,   it is a guess,  but most likely a fabrication.  If the gun could penetrate 40mm at 45 degrees,   that is a 28mm plate   would the # be @65  at a 30 degree plate angle   That's the angle russians and germans tested at, correct ? )   They tested at vertical, 0,  or 30 deg from vertical  and measured the effective penetration.  So, 30 degrees  is  15 % I believe higher than  vertical.  45 degrees is 41.4 % higher, and 60 deg is 2 times higher.   What is the Vertical, or 30 deg #  for the 37mm gun in the IL2 ?  I have not been able to find that

 
 

.  No tests for armor penetration say up to this mm at up to a certain amount of degrees.  40mm at up to 45 degrees.  At a 30 degree angle  effective @ 45,  at a 45 degree angle  @ 56mm effective.  Tests have been printed  with 2 angles,  60  from horizontal and 90 from horizontal or zero and 30 from vertical.  I have never seen one from ww2 that says from 45, the armor thickness from 30 to 45 deg  is 20 % more.  From vertical to 45  is 40% more.Vertical to 60 degrees is double.  This 40mm up to 45 deg is a total red herring, and telling,  as they have no other figures for the round in there such as 30 deg or 0, which  is the angle that AP  were tested at.  If the Developers of IL2 GB used this book as a source,  they used  a faulty #, and with such a flimsy line put in, that would call into question the contents of the entire book not backed up by actual printed material from the tests themselves.  Which is why the IL2  with the 37  stopped trying to take out heavy tanks as the AOA had to be too high for them to penetrate the armor.    

 

 

1)  can you drive a tank or spg into another  of equal size  at 10mph or less and destroy it         (irl, no,  but also irl   10mph or less into a tree will not disable a tank)

2) can a gun that penetrates 25mm of armor  at a zero degree angle, penetrate 30mm at 45 to 60 degrees.  ( no, it cannot,   those are 46mm to 60mm effective)

 

The only answer anyone ever gets from the devs, or the dev fan boy crew is this was thoroughly researched.Well, if this link or book was used as a source that explains alot unless they only referred to actual ww2 test document scans in the book    Why don't we have   Evidence, that an SU122   going 10mph   can run into a tiger and destroy it, because there is no evidence, other than anecdotal(stories, wives tales)   OR a 30mm mine shell hitting a fighter fuselage,  and somehow doing less damage, always, than the photo evidence posted on the forums !   Russians did not kill tanks driving their t34's etc into tigers at kursk,   I hate to let you in on that,  it's a lie, a fabrication.  If the devs believe the T34 drove into tanks, tigers,  at kursk  to destroy them, or disable them,   then all of the  things in the game that are wrong,  now begin to make sense

 

There is more detailed info about the 37mm rounds of the 61-K gun. The AP-T round has almost the same weight and muzzle velocity as the one used in the NS-37 gun in the IL-2.

 

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/37-мм_автоматическая_зенитная_пушка_образца_1939_года_(61-К)#Боеприпасы_и_баллистика

 

 
Остроголовый калиберный сплошной бронебойный снаряд БР-167
Дальность, м При угле встречи 60°, мм При угле встречи 90°, мм
100 46 56
300 42 52
500 38 47
1000 31 38
1500 24 30
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG1_Wittmann

That is a good chart.   Having looked at  all factors,   it is not clear whether it was the su122 or the IL2 that took out my gun and wounded commander and driver.  It appeared to me at the time that the IL2  had done that.  He was carrying 23's.  and rockets.   After losing the gun there was no chance for me to fire at the SU.  The reality is, leaving my position and moving open country was the main cause.   The chart you posted also clearly shows  that a 37 on a plane, if so equipped, does not have the penetrating power to overcome the roof of the  ferdinand.   The distinction is this chart  the 56 from 90,  and the 60.  Now those angles are taken from vertical  and appear to be somewhat off if you approached from a mathematical standpoint.  30 deg from vertical,  gives a plate 15%  more armor effective.  This chart shows that is closer to 18%.  Irregardless, if you take the angle from vertical at 60, you double it,  effectively ruling out a 37mm penetration.   There does in game seem to be a greatly increased accuracy or in game rockets that was enjoyed by no side using an unguided rocket in reality.  If you search  for tests on these you can see that many of the tests only achieve less than 2% accuracy  and close to 1%  and you can certainly achieve a very much higher accuracy than this in game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LachenKrieg
On 7/8/2021 at 5:57 PM, JG1_Wittmann said:

 In reality,  the 122 gun was so innaccurate it was not used to engage armor at long ranges.  With that being said, a short range shot,  would most likely not have hit the roof.  In reality, the first shot probably would not have hit at all since the accuracy was very poor and not repeatable unless the range was short.  The  IL2GB SU 122  does not suffer the RL innaccuracy and is often used to engage enemy armor at long ranges

 

 

You should be posting the LOL  directed at the damage model to the fact that an su122 ran into a tiger  and brewed it up at 10mph or less. I would agree that is very laughable,  just like when you hit a tree or invisible object and damage occurs over 10kph

 

On 7/9/2021 at 3:54 PM, JG1_Wittmann said:

 So,  if the game realistically  "simulates" the 122's poor accuracy  at ranges over 500m,  it makes it very hard to explain how he was able to kill 2 tanks, with 2 shots  from long range.  It could not have been close range, or the round would not have been able to deliver a hit to the roof of the ferdinand.   That's  kind of a conundrum,  he must have been closer if the gun is modeled even remotely close to accurately,   and at a range close enough to be accurate enough there is no chance the round detonates on the roof  of the ferdinand.  That could only be accomplished at long range, dropping the

shot on top.

 

The below link  will show anyone interested,  the amount of extensive research that went into  the  tank damage model :

 

 

Your point is well made, the attacking IL2 did extensive damage which is easily questionable, and the accuracy of the in-game SU-122 is just another example of how the SIM seems to be biased. It is hard to say from the position of a user if this type of biased modeling helps Tank Crew sales, but in my view it is setting the stage for disappointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LachenKrieg
On 7/10/2021 at 3:14 AM, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

 

Michael Wittmann has a cult status that does not match his achievements. He's not even the most succesful Axis tank commander, we only know about him because of attempts to paint the Waffen SS in a favourable light after the war. This is a crucial distinction because Eisenhower and Montgomery are widely studied historical figures beyond their cult image.

 

But ofc. you are right. Bernard Montgomery and Dwight Eisenhower have plenty of propaganda behind them, and critical analysis of these figures remains necessary. But crucially, for the purposes of a discussion on an internet forum, I'm not going to assume that someone who named themself after an Allied general will be entirely neutral about their assessments with regards to the Allies,  just like I'm not going to assume that someone who named himself after a SS propaganda icon is going to be neutral about the performance of Nazi equipment.

How does one determine whether the cult status given to Michael Wittmann matches his combat experience, or is this just subjective opinion?

 

Whether you like him or not, M.W. was a highly decorated WWII tank ace. He is also one of the few people to be decorated personally by Hitler himself. He was recognized for showing a high degree of bravery during engagements where the odds were stacked significantly against him and his crew.

 

I know one of the biggest criticisms of him as a commander was that he made tactical mistakes through rash decisions, but criticisms like that are often stuck somewhere between text book doctrine and what reality might demand in battle.

 

Many hero's tales are the result of someone taking action where most wouldn't, or where the text book says you shouldn't. So M.W. is not alone in this respect. That includes hero's on the Allied side.   

On 7/10/2021 at 6:12 AM, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

 Soviet firing trails indicated that an F34 could penetrate a Panzer IV from the front at 1970 meters. The British were able to penetrate the Panzer IV from the front with a 2-pounder.

 

"But wait!" Attentive readers might now object. "The Panzer IV in game is the G variant, which was up-armoured to solve this issue!". And you'd be right! However, there are two issues with this:
1) The 30mm of additional armour plate added to the front is, well, an additional plate. It's not a solid 80mm block of armour, it's a 30mm "shield" in front of a 50mm piece of armour. This affects how the armour performs negatively.

2) Whilst the front of the Panzer IV's hull was upgraded, the turret was not - the armour remained the same. This is reflected in the ingame data, which states that the penetration power of an AP-firing F34 at 1000 meters is 61mm of penetration, which is beyond the measly 50mm in the Panzer IV G's turret front.

 

 

"But wait!" there is an issue with that...

 

The differences between the PzIV G hull armor and a solid 80mm armor plate is not really the issue/question here, the issue/question you raise is, do you mean the Soviet trials indicate that the F34 could penetrate the PzIV G hull armor from 1970 meters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
On 7/14/2021 at 7:38 PM, LachenKrieg said:

How does one determine whether the cult status given to Michael Wittmann matches his combat experience, or is this just subjective opinion?

As much as his cult status itself is subjective opinion? No. Wittmann was singled out by Nazi propaganda because, beyond his ability to be a good tank commander, he was also a good Nazi (contrast this with Kurt Knispel, who is credited with the most tank kills of all time, and yet nobody knows his name). The most common "historical source" about him was written by Patrick Agte, a member of the HIAG, and a popular source is the historical fiction "Panzer Aces". Thus me saying that Wittman is an SS propaganda icon - since he was.

 

On 7/14/2021 at 7:38 PM, LachenKrieg said:

"But wait!" there is an issue with that...

 

The differences between the PzIV G hull armor and a solid 80mm armor plate is not really the issue/question here, the issue/question you raise is, do you mean the Soviet trials indicate that the F34 could penetrate the PzIV G hull armor from 1970 meters?

I invite you to read my post again, all the info is in there.

Edited by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LachenKrieg
On 7/15/2021 at 5:46 PM, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

As much as his cult status itself is subjective opinion? No. Wittmann was singled out by Nazi propaganda because, beyond his ability to be a good tank commander, he was also a good Nazi (contrast this with Kurt Knispel, who is credited with the most tank kills of all time, and yet nobody knows his name). The most common "historical source" about him was written by Patrick Agte, a member of the HIAG, and a popular source is the historical fiction "Panzer Aces". Thus me saying that Wittman is an SS propaganda icon - since he was.

 

I invite you to read my post again, all the info is in there.

Well unless you qualify how you determined whether the combat actions of M. W. are worthy of the praise they received, then simply saying "No" hardly adds anything in terms of being objective.

 

And yes, M. W. was a Nazi, are you surprised? When someone is decorated for their actions in a battle, they are not being decorated for being the player with high score, they are being decorated for the actions they took in battle. You are comparing the total number of kills someone had at the end of the war with the recognition earned through action, which are two slightly different things.

 

Kurt is a well known figure in the hall of WWII tank aces. But being recognized for your actions usually involves another person to make the recommendation. So for whatever the reason, M. W. was well recognized for the actions he took. And I don't see why you are so surprised that M. W. was often used to inspire/promote recruitment into Germany's tank units. Unless you are suggesting that they should have used someone with less experience, then like Kurt, M. W. was a highly decorated tank ace. I don't see anything strange about wanting to use the recognition he earned to help Germany's war effort.

 

I have read your posts, but have you read through the entire link you provided? Because it provides interesting insight into what can be expected from a penetrating shot as opposed to just leaving ventilation holes. revisit your own comments in the other Sherman thread.

 

But in your discussion about the capabilities of the F34 gun, you point out that the front hall armor on the panzer IVG is made up of two plates. The question I was interested in was whether that gun could penetrate both plates from 1970 meters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peasant

I would advise to take the information presented on http://www.tankarchives.ca blog with a grain of salt, as the owner Peter Samsonov is known for presenting things out of context in order to build a narrative of "soviet tanks = good, german tanks = bad".

 

In this particular case, he forgot to mention that those nice penetration charts were not based on the actual firings but computed with assumption that:

 

Quote

"The results obtained are in most cases insufficient to build a complete tactical schematic of every unique armour layout present on the enemy tanks. But, the fact that the armour of german tanks is similar in ballistic resistance to domestic armour of the same type, gives the right to use additional data from the ballistic trials of domestic armour, a great body of which was collected during the many years of manufacturing and testing. This allows to improve our estimates of the level of protection of enemy tanks.

For computing [of the tactical diagrams] the ballistic resistance of the german RHA was taken as equal to that of the domestic high hardness armour for thicknesses up to and including 40mm and to domestic medium hardness armour for 50mm plates.

Resistance of the layered(shielded) armour was takes as equivalent to that of a single plate of the same thickness.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2260103#p2260103

 

I know of no declassified data on the performance of soviet F-34 gun against 50mm thick FHA present on some german tanks, so if you see any figures they are most likely just guesstimates.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
59 minutes ago, Peasant said:

 

In this particular case, he forgot to mention that those nice penetration charts were not based on the actual firings but computed with assumption that:

 

He mentions this actually:

Quote

According to calculations (emphasis mine) of NII-48 in topic 2VV-2 "Investigation of the armour of tanks of the German army" (CAMD RF 38-11355-778), the following are the distances at which an F-34 can defeat the armour of a Pz 38(t)

 

However, there are actual firing documents straight at the top: the "Report on the shooting of German tanks with AP and HE shells from tank guns" (CAMD RF 38-11355-832) is used for the first paragraphs, which comes to the following conclusions:

Quote

The PzIV is tested next. Its front armour is penetrated at 500 meters (entrance diameter 90 mm, exit diameter 100 mm). From 800 meters, another penetration. The front armour plate is shattered into two pieces. Another shot from 800 meters penetrates the front. The testers switch to firing at the side at 800 meters.

The side is penetrated. The 20 mm armour screen is torn off the bolts that hold it. The shell keeps going, and penetrates the other side of the hull, and its armour screen. Total penetration is 80 mm. Another shell penetrates the side, but only one side this time. It knocks off the wheel carrier.

The gunner aims at the turret. The hatch of the turret is torn off with a direct hit. The side of the turret bends inwards 50 mm. Another shot impacts the commander's cupola, tearing it off, and throwing it 5 meters. The hatches on top of the cupola are also torn off, and thrown 30 meters. Another shot to the side of the hull forms a 130 by 350 mm breach.

Conclusions: "The 76 mm AP shell can penetrate the front of a PzIV at 900 meters. We did not test larger distances. The 76 mm HE shell destroys the side of the turret and hull at any range."

From conclusions of the document:
"The 76 mm long-range HE-fragmentation steel grenade fired from a 76 mm gun (F-34) model 1940 installed in a T-34 tank, on impact with the Czechoslovakian 38t tank, side or rear 30-20 mm German tanks PzIII, StuG, and PzIV, destroys armour plates from 1000 meters, damaging the tank and crew with the fragments.
The 76 mm AP shell, when fired from a 76 mm gun (F-34) model 1940, penetrates the front armour of German tanks PzIII, PzIV, and Pz 38(t) from 800-1000 meters. The penetration ability from over 1000 meters was not checked.
...
The 76 mm model 1940 (F-34) gun is an effective weapon against all German tanks, based on its AP penetration and HE shell destructive properties."

 

Edited by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peasant
On 7/19/2021 at 10:09 PM, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

 

However, there are actual firing documents straight at the top: the "Report on the shooting of German tanks with AP and HE shells from tank guns" (CAMD RF 38-11355-832) is used for the first paragraphs, which comes to the following conclusions:

 

 

The thing is, this particular Panzer.IV didnt have face hardened frontal plates installed. In another part of the trial the soviet 45mm Mod.1937 gun (760m/s) was able to penetrate its nose (50mm/15°) with an additional side angle of 20° from the distance of 50m. This is not a fluke as other shots from 100m distance under same conditions made very deep dents with cracked bulges on the back, almost penetrating all the way through. Almost exactly how it should've performed against homogeneous armour based on soviet estimates. For comparison, the front armour of the StuG had only shallow surface dents under same conditions under fire with a more powerful 45mm Mod.1942 soviet gun(870m/s).

 

Edited by Peasant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LachenKrieg

The point is, the PzIV G was a very capable machine against the T34/Sherman. The PzIV G/T34/Sherman should make for some very exciting game play because they could all knock each other out. And like Shampoo said in another thread, it would normally come down to "he who shoots first". It is clear from the various threads on this topic that there are problems/bugs with the current damage model that need to be worked out.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...