PDA

View Full Version : 35 MG151 20mm shells to down a fighter?!...or the the totaly distorted damage model of AEP



Tipo_Man
03-25-2004, 02:29 AM
Here are some tracks:
(better set arcade=1 in your conf.ini file before watching them)

http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/35_20mmMG151_Rounds_to_down_a_KI-84.TRK
This tracks shows a Ki-84 soaking 34 MG151/20 shells and still flying...

This one shows the same plane hit by Hispano 20mm shells. The first plane takes 4 hits to shoot down ,the second 3.
http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/3-4_20mmHispano_rounds_to_down_a_ki-84.TRK

Now mr.Maddox could you explain us what makes Hispano cannon 8 - 12 times more effective than MG151/20 ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
Well maybe the first was slightly more effective having a slightly higher muzzle velocity and slightly heavier round...But the current modelling is simply ridiculous!

...and in a recent thread You told us that you gunnery model is so good that you won't change it for BoB. Wow !!!!

Here are some more tracks
This one show the effect of 12,7 Berezin MG upon a Ki-84.
http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/10-20_Berezin_rounds_to_down_a_KI-84.TRK

It takes about 8 hits to kill the engine of the first plane , the second is shot down after about 20hits

I do not know how many complaints it takes to make you fix the absolutely porked MG151/20 right now...


Now lets look a little deeper in the problem with MG151/20.
A long time ago I posted this:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=72910333&r=83910333#83910333
then this:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=90710343&r=41710343#41710343

both threads relate to the fact that there is a bug in MG151/20 shell modelling.

EVERY MG151/20 shell produces an explosion like a MG round, but half of them actually inflict the damage of an AP round !
I would say MG151/20 now fires AP-AP-HE or something like this, but the explosions visible on the target are always MG-MG-MG.

This is very annoying ... sometimes you see huge explosions in the wing switch but when you switch to externals you see the wing completely intact, since the damage effect of a MG round is simulated as an AP round

here is a picture to understand it better:
http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/MG151_20_wrong_modelling.JPG

Tipo_Man
03-25-2004, 02:29 AM
Here are some tracks:
(better set arcade=1 in your conf.ini file before watching them)

http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/35_20mmMG151_Rounds_to_down_a_KI-84.TRK
This tracks shows a Ki-84 soaking 34 MG151/20 shells and still flying...

This one shows the same plane hit by Hispano 20mm shells. The first plane takes 4 hits to shoot down ,the second 3.
http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/3-4_20mmHispano_rounds_to_down_a_ki-84.TRK

Now mr.Maddox could you explain us what makes Hispano cannon 8 - 12 times more effective than MG151/20 ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
Well maybe the first was slightly more effective having a slightly higher muzzle velocity and slightly heavier round...But the current modelling is simply ridiculous!

...and in a recent thread You told us that you gunnery model is so good that you won't change it for BoB. Wow !!!!

Here are some more tracks
This one show the effect of 12,7 Berezin MG upon a Ki-84.
http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/10-20_Berezin_rounds_to_down_a_KI-84.TRK

It takes about 8 hits to kill the engine of the first plane , the second is shot down after about 20hits

I do not know how many complaints it takes to make you fix the absolutely porked MG151/20 right now...


Now lets look a little deeper in the problem with MG151/20.
A long time ago I posted this:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=72910333&r=83910333#83910333
then this:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=90710343&r=41710343#41710343

both threads relate to the fact that there is a bug in MG151/20 shell modelling.

EVERY MG151/20 shell produces an explosion like a MG round, but half of them actually inflict the damage of an AP round !
I would say MG151/20 now fires AP-AP-HE or something like this, but the explosions visible on the target are always MG-MG-MG.

This is very annoying ... sometimes you see huge explosions in the wing switch but when you switch to externals you see the wing completely intact, since the damage effect of a MG round is simulated as an AP round

here is a picture to understand it better:
http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/MG151_20_wrong_modelling.JPG

LLv34_Flanker
03-25-2004, 03:17 AM
S!

I guess the DM needs a LOT of tuning now. Feels kinda ridiculous when a squadmate made my 109G-6 crippled with 2 hits of .303 and later on we hit a Spit with 20mm without visible damage http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Just and example, nothing against Spit. The DM just seems so odd sometimes.

---------------------------

Flanker
1.Lentue p¤¤llikk¶ / TO
Lentolaivue 34

"Let Chaos entvine on defenseless soil!"
~Dimmu Borgir~

CTO88
03-25-2004, 03:54 AM
good post really very great problem! pls change it.

WUAF_Badsight
03-25-2004, 04:31 AM
ok now the DM in AEP is strange

the MG151/20 seem to be weakened a Lot ........ why ?

you can spray & spray the Spitfire & it flys okish after

after a lot of Spitfire v Bf109-G2 coop-ing the score is FIRMLY in the Spitfire's favour . . . . . why ?

its really tuff whereas the early & G model Bf109 can engine smoke & hole their wing from small bursts

as far as performance goes those 2 planes balance each other out but the scales are tipped in the Spitfire favour thru the DM that has been given to the Bf109 in FB

also

sometimes i damadge Ki-84's good & proper but other times she flys away okish

these 2 planes are just the tip-o-teh-iceberg

the DM for guns & planes has altered DRAMATICALLY in v2.0

WUAF_Badsight
03-25-2004, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tipo_Man:

This is very annoying ... sometimes you see huge explosions in the wing switch but when you switch to externals you see the wing completely intact <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the Actual Hits Recieved & the VISIBLE DM are not linked 100%

only way to be entirely sure is to fly the suspect plane in combat & see how it handels after recieveing hits

also testing in Arcade mode can show you the hits its taken but AI fly in FB so much better with damadge than human players can

jurinko
03-25-2004, 04:50 AM
hmm, depends on the type of plane you are shooting at. P-39s for example are quite sensitive to 20mms.. offline..

----------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

VW-IceFire
03-25-2004, 06:49 AM
With Spitfires and the DM I have noticed that either a short burst into an engine or wing will knock the wing off or set the engine on fire or you can pour fire into the fuselage and almost nothing will happen. On FW190 its less of a problem...the spray will get something important and the Spit may still be flying but its going to be impossible to control.

The Ki-84, according to gunnery tests done, seems to soak up more fire in some cases than P-47's and the only aircraft still at the top that should be is the IL-2. I'd do some testing against other aircraft. Remember not to look for structural failure, look for the effectively out of combat judgement.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

WWMaxGunz
03-25-2004, 07:02 AM
"...and in a recent thread You told us that you gunnery model is so good that you won't change it for BoB. Wow !!!!"

Gunnery is not damage, it is ballistics.

"I do not know how many complaints it takes to make you fix the absolutely porked MG151/20 right now..."

Yes, by all means stop all work instantly and make a patch RIGHT NOW! SCHNELL!

I do not remember seeing anything from Oleg about changes in the way HE makes damage. I hope he does.

I have seen the big flashes in track playbacks with arcade on and there is only one arrow of an AP strike. I am convinced this is how they make tracer being stripped from the shot as it enters through the hole it made. There does indeed seem to be more AP hits than 1 in 5.

From the Guns and Ammo table entries for the 151/20 it is also apparent that the MG rounds have a different ballistic path than the AP and HE which includes the tracers. MG rounds have slightly less mass and a higher muzzle velocity. the mass is 80% of the others and the muzzle velocity is 10% higher (775m/s vs 705m/s). Over anything but very short range the MG rounds will arc up higher, cross over, and then fall off quicker than the other rounds and the cross point will not neccessarily be the convergence distance. It's even worse for the Mk108's. That's the gunnery. It is entirely possible to hit with the AP and HE and miss with the MG rounds. Especially when firing at slim horizontal profile targets such as wings from the rear.

Maybe there's a change coming. We so far don't know until patch release. It is probably a matter of not making promises until they have working and tested code. I REALLY DO HOPE THERE IS A CHANGE! ***All*** HE blasts seem to have no effect on crew, cockpit glass/plastic, or AC skin from outside except for fragments. From inside I have also seen arcade playbacks with fragments exiting a Tu-2 pod where the gear is and no hole through made, but an 80 calibre shell (20mm) is not a handgrenade. I think that holes should be blasted on outside skin hit and exploded against, just not sure how big. ;^)


Neal

Tipo_Man
03-25-2004, 08:23 AM
Well but there is still a problem of wrong visualisation of MG151/20 AP rounds. Just look how ShVAK AP shells hits are "displayed", there is no such big explosion and you can always tell whether you hit with an AP or HE round !

MG151/20 shells always explode (only on the screen) and some of them does a damage as AP shells

crazyivan1970
03-25-2004, 10:49 AM
Relax people... all those issues are known and being worked on. Wait for the patch, ok? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

clint-ruin
03-25-2004, 11:21 AM
Hi there,

You will find that all planes DMs work in this manner.

4 cannon hits to a 'weak' location - wing root, engine, whatever - are usually more than enough to finish a plane off, or at least cripple it.

Let's take a look at what you managed to do to poor Mr KI..

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/sillyboy.jpg

Hmm..

So - you advanced the following components in their DM texture stages:

Right elevator

Right horizontal stabiliser

Fuselage mid-section

Left cockpit side

Engine cowling

Left wing root

You will find that with most planes, any one section can tollerate a certain number of hits. AP damage is modelled by allowing a shot to penetrate more than one section - typically the outside DM 3d model into the internal DM. HE fragment damage is modelled by allowing fragments [smaller arrows] to damage surrounding DM components.

If you shoot a plane all over, you are going to be able to keep hitting it until one particular external or internal DM component 'trips' and causes catastrophic damage.

Here's a track I just made right this second to show you what I'm talking about - 36 was my record for 1.21, but I'm sure you can fill us in on how many hits this Bf109G2 takes here:

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/you_are_not_special.zip

I think you will find that "DM whines" using such tricks are well known to quite a few people here - good luck with it though.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

dux-1
03-25-2004, 11:38 AM
In the last months of the war, German pilots and crew grounded because the lack of fuel and spare parts were mounting 20mm and 30mm planes cannons on improvised supports and used to destroy T34 russian tanks(!). Well one thinks that a WWII fighter plane have less aurmour that a T34 (!)...

Just my .2 cents...

faustnik
03-25-2004, 11:54 AM
Taking out T34s with 20 or 30mm. That's funny. Good luck! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

NegativeGee
03-25-2004, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Taking out T34s with 20 or 30mm. That's funny. Good luck! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess what he needs is a P-47, because they could (apparently) knock out Konigstigers with their 0.50 Cals http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

dux-1
03-25-2004, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Taking out T34s with 20 or 30mm. That's funny. Good luck! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well.. I did not come up with this myself.. It's reported in military history books..

faustnik
03-25-2004, 12:51 PM
I know Dux, not picking on you. The idea is just silly. A 20mm Mg 151 or Mk108 is not going to effect the well sloped 45mm plates on a T-34. Even 50mm APCR had trouble with T-34s.

Anyone who want to fire a 20mm at a T-34 is welcome to, just let me get out of the wat first. I'll be hiding under cover with my panzerfaust, waiting until it gets real close. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Rebel_Yell_21
03-25-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
I guess what he needs is a P-47, because they could (apparently) knock out Konigstigers with their 0.50 Cals http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many times crew abandoned AFV's being strafed if they weren't close to cover as they had to assume bombs, etc were soon to follow, but no KT was ever knocked out by .50s. Damn few AFV's were ko'ed by rockets, also, as postwar analysis showed.

http://www.flyvintage.com/img/backdrops/p-51d_big_beautiful_doll/thumb.jpg

HellToupee
03-25-2004, 05:10 PM
i think it depends on what plane you are fighting, 109s usually go down in shot birsts but ive had even p51s take many hits and keep flying, with the ki84 i know it took 2 spits ammo loads just to knock off its elevator :P. All guns seem a bit weak.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

clint-ruin
03-25-2004, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
i think it depends on what plane you are fighting, 109s usually go down in shot birsts but ive had even p51s take many hits and keep flying, with the ki84 i know it took 2 spits ammo loads just to knock off its elevator :P. All guns seem a bit weak.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this offline or online? Makes a bit of a difference in determining what both sides 'saw' of the hits.

For what its worth, here's what I just managed with the SpitVb "41" vs Ki84 a/b/c.

Could probably have got more than 11 if not for sucky gamepad and ****** tnt2 graphics card.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/11.zip

Damn they burn up pretty good.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Lav69
03-25-2004, 05:53 PM
I need to mount my sons pellet gun on my p51. Maybe then I could do some real damage. DM needs work!!!

Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe, bios 1008
Nvidia nForce 2, Ultra 400 chipset
Antec 430w PS
Athlon XP 3200 (400fsb)
ATI Radeon 9700pro
1024mb Corsair XMS, twin x, pc3200, dual channel
120gb Maxtor, sata 150 - 120gb WD 7200rpm
SB Audigy
Windows XP, home
Saitek X45

HellToupee
03-25-2004, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
i think it depends on what plane you are fighting, 109s usually go down in shot birsts but ive had even p51s take many hits and keep flying, with the ki84 i know it took 2 spits ammo loads just to knock off its elevator :P. All guns seem a bit weak.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeh online offline even the ki84 can be brought down eventually.

Is this offline or online? Makes a bit of a difference in determining what both sides 'saw' of the hits.

For what its worth, here's what I just managed with the SpitVb "41" vs Ki84 a/b/c.

Could probably have got more than 11 if not for sucky gamepad and ****** tnt2 graphics card.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/11.zip

Damn they burn up pretty good.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

PzKpfw
03-25-2004, 06:42 PM
Actualy the .50 AP ammunition could penetrate the top armor of some German or Soviet tanks Ie, US penetration data for the M2 show penetration @300m of :

21mm @ 90?
13mm @ 60?
5mm @ 30?

So .50 AP was more then capable of defeating some tank's top armor Ie, PzKpfw IVH/J, top turret armor @ 16-25mm, T-34-76/42 was 16mm, , T-34-85 20mm, PzKpfw VG 16mm @ 90?, & this doesn't include top hull armor which was usualy much less Ie, PzKpfw IVH/J top hull armor was 11mm, PzKpfw VG 16mm etc.

Problem is an fighter Ie, a P-47 would have to make an vertical 90? dive to do it, with no hope of pull out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

The 20mm was not any better even with APCR. 30mm could take out tanks by aiming at vital spots Ie, top hull, top turret, rear engine deck armor etc, with the Mk 101's ammunition performance of 75mm @ 0? @ 300m etc. Remember AC attack tanks not on the frontal arc, where their armor is strongest, but in their weakest area the upper armor.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu March 25 2004 at 06:27 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
03-25-2004, 09:19 PM
Tanks are not uniformly covered in armor even with set thicknesses for sides, rear and top. They have weak spots. They have view holes. Tanks with turrets have turret rings generally unprotected. Many tanks have ventillation slots on the top rear hull because how do the engines otherwise cool the radiators?

Tanks do not always ride with all hatches closed and men down inside. One sniper can kill the driver or commander or at least force the crew to button up and so reduce speed and visibility drastically. A few men with rifles catching a tank opened up can effectively stop it long enough to mount and kill it.

So an airplane that opens up on an unbuttoned tank can't destroy it? An airplane that hits the weak spots can't get rounds through to crew, engine, fuel and/or ammo? One bullet at speed inside the compartment can wound or kill one or more crew easily. And dismounted 20 or 30mm AC guns can break tracks or get through holes or possibly break the turret ring and get inside.

Knights in armor had the same problems. A thin blade that could bend would slip right through the overlapping joints that a broadsword could not.

It's not just a matter of being unable to smash through the widest, strongest protection something had. It's a matter of those things not being strong everywhere and quite vulnerable in a number of ways. That is why tanks without infantry and AA is a no-no and has been for what, 60 years or more? It was in old tank design, strategy and tactics books I've had and read.


Neal

clint-ruin
03-25-2004, 10:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
The 20mm was not any better even with APCR. 30mm could take out tanks by aiming at vital spots Ie, top hull, top turret, rear engine deck armor etc, with the Mk 101's ammunition performance of 75mm @ 0? @ 300m etc. Remember AC attack tanks not on the frontal arc, where their armor is strongest, but in their weakest area the upper armor.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got curious and browsed around battlefield.ru - lists 4.7 T-34 casualties to 20mm and 10 to 37mm guns prior to 9/42.

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_3.html

Presumably it could be done from an aircraft at close enough range and a nice enough angle - sloped armour doesn't matter much when the shooter is above and doesn't have the same ground level oblique angle the armour was designed to counter.

I always thought the main point of air attack was fuel/supply interdiction and producing "crippled" tanks with busted engines/AWOL crews/no supplys/no transportation. Kind of like how wounding troops can be a bigger drain on an enemy force than outright killing them.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Tipo_Man
03-26-2004, 02:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Hi there,

You will find that all planes DMs work in this manner.

4 cannon hits to a 'weak' location - wing root, engine, whatever - are usually more than enough to finish a plane off, or at least cripple it.

Let's take a look at what you managed to do to poor Mr KI..

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/sillyboy.jpg

Hmm..

So - you advanced the following components in their DM texture stages:

Right elevator

Right horizontal stabiliser

Fuselage mid-section

Left cockpit side

Engine cowling

Left wing root


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to you there are six different damage locations I was shooting at. And again according to you "4 cannon hits to a 'weak' location - wing root, engine, whatever - are usually more than enough to finish a plane off, or at least cripple it."

Now the question is : Can you count ?

34 hits in 6 different "DM locations" means 4 location with 6 hits and 2 locations with 5 hits if we assume that they are spread most equally .
Now why the hell just one of these 4 locations with 6 hits each didn't fail, since you say 4 hits are ususally enough ? Notice that there is very big probability of hits not spreading regularly and thus some "DM locations" may have "received" more than just 6 hits.

and if you look at the track with the Spitfire you will see that only 2 hits with the hispano cannon at generally one "DM location" are enough to shoot the Ki-84.

So why the Hispano 20mm cannon can shoot down a plane with 3-4 hits of which only 2 are at generally same "DM location" while MG151/20 can pump 6+ hits on the same "DM location" (and 28 more hits ) without destroying the plane?

PzKpfw
03-26-2004, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
[quote]
Got curious and browsed around battlefield.ru - lists 4.7 T-34 casualties to 20mm and 10 to 37mm guns prior to 9/42.

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_3.html

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clint I have no doubt an rare T-34 or 2 was taken out by 20mm AP/HE thru open hatches or a lucky hit in the engine louvres etc. But it was by no means an effective tank killer.

The US & UK tested the .50 & 20mm and found them useless against even top turret & hull armor, 20mm AP/HE was found more effective then .50AP when it entered thru open hatches.

The Germans tested the 30mm MK 101 useing 231g tungsten carbide cored ammunition which could penetrate 75mm @ 300m (330yrds) & 103mm @ 50m (55yrds). Problem was tungsten was in short supply.

The first dedicated German 'Tank killer' AC was the Hs 129B, 4/Sch.G1 began operations on May 17 1942 operateing against Soviet bridgeheads on the Donets river, & claimed destruction of 23 tanks in several ewngagements.

However an battlefield investigation of KO'd Soviet armor found no tanks destroyed by AC cannon, despite Soviet prisoner reports that the 30mm was very effective in takeing out tanks & causing panic in personell etc, 4/Sch.G1 then requested the cannon be removed & replaced with bomb racks.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

clint-ruin
03-26-2004, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
According to you there are six different damage locations I was shooting at. And again according to you "4 cannon hits to a 'weak' location - wing root, engine, whatever - are usually more than enough to finish a plane off, or at least cripple it."

Now the question is : Can you count ?

34 hits in 6 different "DM locations" means 4 location with 6 hits and 2 locations with 5 hits if we assume that they are spread most equally . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they're not spread equally.

Rear fuselage is by far the most resistant damage location for any plane in FB - guess where most of your shootin' goes :&gt;

It's also split into several sections along the length of the plane. Not the best place in the world to try and shoot something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now why the hell just one of these 4 locations with 6 hits each didn't fail, since you say 4 hits are ususally enough ? Notice that there is very big probability of hits not spreading regularly and thus some "DM locations" may have "received" more than just 6 hits.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've taken out half an elevator, vertical stabiliser, drilled holes all the way up the fuselage, messed up the engine, and shot the crap out of the wing root.

We can split hairs about what consistitutes a "crippled" aircraft if you like, but I'd be betting that the Ki-84 isn't going into any turnfights any time soon, or at least, won't be coming out of one.

Similar things can be done with every gun in the game. You can plink an aircrafts engine out with 1 AP or spend minutes pumping the entire structure full of holes. Your choice.

My personal opinion is that the reason the Hispano Mk1 does so well in the game is because there's a general weighting towards kinetic rather than chemical/pressure damage in FB. 50% API tends to do a lot better against internals and fuel tanks than 20%. It's all about getting the right round in the right place.

It also comes down to a matter of personality - when I discovered that I could pump 36 ShVAK shells into a Bf109 back in 1.21, I made a mental note to concentrate fire rather than spraying it all around. I didn't come into ORR posting pictures like .. oh .. I dunno..

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/shvak_bf109.jpg

..and start telling Oleg that he has horribly undermodelled the ShVAK because there's no possible way a plane could keep flying with 36 of those holes. Or that the game was horribly biased because I could take out a Mig3/Yak1/7/9 and so on with one MG151/20 round.

It doesn't actually occur to me that such things could be blamed on the game or the developer rather than my own shooting.

Dunno why.

Am I stupid or something?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

clint-ruin
03-26-2004, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
However an battlefield investigation of KO'd Soviet armor found no tanks destroyed by AC cannon, despite Soviet prisoner reports that the 30mm was very effective in takeing out tanks & causing panic in personell etc, 4/Sch.G1 then requested the cannon be removed & replaced with bomb racks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definitely - I was just posting that I'd actually found any reference to sub 45mm scoring T-34 kills. Not much comparison between a little 20mm pop gun and a 250KG bomb or dedicated anti-armour cluster bomb..

I'd be willing to bet that the 20mm and 37mm were from point blank range into the flank from a static gun / halftrack parked right next to the tank :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Tipo_Man
03-26-2004, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
No, they're not spread equally.

Rear fuselage is by far the most resistant damage location for any plane in FB - guess where most of your shootin' goes :&gt;

It's also split into several sections along the length of the plane. Not the best place in the world to try and shoot something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Now why the hell just one of these 4 locations with 6 hits each didn't fail, since you say 4 hits are ususally enough ? Notice that there is very big probability of hits not spreading regularly and thus some "DM locations" may have "received" more than just 6 hits.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You've taken out half an elevator, vertical stabiliser, drilled holes all the way up the fuselage, messed up the engine, and shot the crap out of the wing root.

We can split hairs about what consistitutes a "crippled" aircraft if you like, but I'd be betting that the Ki-84 isn't going into any turnfights any time soon, or at least, won't be coming out of one.

Similar things can be done with every gun in the game. You can plink an aircrafts engine out with 1 AP or spend minutes pumping the entire structure full of holes. Your choice.

My personal opinion is that the reason the Hispano Mk1 does so well in the game is because there's a general weighting towards kinetic rather than chemical/pressure damage in FB. 50% API tends to do a lot better against internals and fuel tanks than 20%. It's all about getting the right round in the right place.

It also comes down to a matter of personality - when I discovered that I could pump 36 ShVAK shells into a Bf109 back in 1.21, I made a mental note to concentrate fire rather than spraying it all around. I didn't come into ORR posting pictures like .. oh .. I dunno..

http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/weapon/shvak_bf109.jpg

..and start telling Oleg that he has horribly undermodelled the ShVAK because there's no possible way a plane could keep flying with 36 of those holes. Or that the game was horribly biased because I could take out a Mig3/Yak1/7/9 and so on with one MG151/20 round.

It doesn't actually occur to me that such things could be blamed on the game or the developer rather than my own shooting.

Dunno why.

Am I stupid or something?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Well you obviously think that I deliberately hit the Ki-84 the way it can take the most hits only to appear here and draw people attention...

Well then could you please show me a Ki-84 taking 34 Hispano shells and still flying ? Make as many attempts as you wish shoot him wherever you want...
Just come here and post a track of Ki-84 taking 34 Hispano hits

Can you take that challenge ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

clint-ruin
03-26-2004, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Well you obviously think that I deliberately hit the Ki-84 the way it can take the most hits only to appear here and draw people attention...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not my intention at all.

I'm just saying that

a) the approach to shooting is a silly one given the way FBs dms work

b) the results shown aren't special in any way. They can be replicated by just about any gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well then could you please show me a Ki-84 taking 34 Hispano shells and still flying ? Make as many attempts as you wish shoot him wherever you want...
Just come here and post a track of Ki-84 taking 34 Hispano hits

Can you take that challenge ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I played with this for about 4 goes - best I could do was 18-19 rounds. Minimum was actually just one round through the cockpit, second go took 7 rounds, next took 13. Then I got bored. Note that in this one I haven't even started exploring the other sections of the DM - IMHO the plane is good for at least another couple of rounds in the left wing, left horizontal stab, rudder, etc. The big problem with the Hizookas in this type of test is trying not to kill the pilot...

As I mentioned, what makes the Hispano really dangerous in FB is the 50% AP mix - and that it slings some serious amounts of lead at a target. HE content in general is under-represented IMHO. The next up in the list from the Hispano, in terms of raw KE, is the 23mm anti-tank VYa cannon.

MG 151/20
// APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG
APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 705.0
power = 0.0044

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 775.0
power = 0.0186

Hispano-Suiza Mk.I
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.129
speed = 860.0
power = 0.012

AP
mass = 0.124
speed = 860.0
power = 0

More mass at higher speed is very bad for aircraft in FB. HE fragment damage is far better in terms of rendering an aircraft 'unflyable' by a human pilot, damaging multiple sections of an aircrafts skin at once, but it very rarely does catastrophic structural damage all by itself for 23mm shells and below. You need multiple hits on the same or similar location to make that happen. HE and AP rounds shine in opposite situtations - AP rounds don't do too badly at all out of hitting a wing from behind [internal DM wing spars don't like that], or the rear fuselage [fuel/pilot/engine systems], something the HEs don't like all that much due to the way fragments get thrown about in FB. Best place for HEs is a solid perpendicular hit where the fragments can be sprayed onto multiple components - wing root at an angle tends to produce the best results, since you expose the wing, engine, and pilot to fragment damage.

I have worn my fingers to the bone typing about this stuff previously .. I think what we really need is some way of simulating the airflows interaction with an unstable structure, or blast pressure inside an object being able to damage more than one internal system, or simulating other pressure-based effects. Then we'd see more realistic results from HE shell impacts.

Oh - the track.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/19.zip

The biggest problem I ran into with the Hispano vs Ki tests was trying not to kill the pilot with the APs while I was shooting - they carve through cockpit armour like it's butter. Engine is also very exposed to AP damage - radials are more resistant in this game to AP than the inlines, but if you poke it enough they still die.

In terms of what people perceive to be effective, just take a look through the thread. One guy says it takes the ammo loads of two Spitfires to kill off a Ki84s elevator - but it's possible to kill at least 11 and probably more with the ammo load from one Spit - and that's without even using deflection shooting, just from plugging away from 6 o'clock. You say it takes 4 rounds. It can take 19 or probably much more, depending on where they hit. Just down off the front page we have a thread saying that the Ki84 takes 4 x 45mm shells from the Yak9K - not something I've ever been able to make it do, myself.

It is all about where you shoot, and making the shots you get count.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

VW-IceFire
03-26-2004, 01:39 PM
Seems like in higher lag situations in online servers the usually decent levels of fire required to destroy a target jump.

In a good, relatively lag free, environment its no problem...but I've just come from a laggier game and I poured something around 30-40 20mm cannon shells into a P-63C over the course of 4-5 minutes engagement and he was still ok. The same thing happened to a La-7. I had hit him multiple times over the course of a several minute chasing including a sustained burst across him and he was damaged but not unflyable.

In a different server the same would have torn the La-7 to peices and he'd be a small hole in the ground.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

JG7_Rall
03-26-2004, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dunno why.

Am I stupid or something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like you've cracked the case, Sherlock!

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/Typhoon_Target_resized_copy.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
When in doubt, climb!

Tipo_Man
03-27-2004, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

I have worn my fingers to the bone typing about this stuff previously .. I think what we really need is some way of simulating the airflows interaction with an unstable structure, or blast pressure inside an object being able to damage more than one internal system, or simulating other pressure-based effects. Then we'd see more realistic results from HE shell impacts.


The biggest problem I ran into with the Hispano vs Ki tests was trying not to kill the pilot with the APs while I was shooting - they carve through cockpit armour like it's butter. Engine is also very exposed to AP damage - radials are more resistant in this game to AP than the inlines, but if you poke it enough they still die.

In terms of what people perceive to be effective, just take a look through the thread. One guy says it takes the ammo loads of two Spitfires to kill off a Ki84s elevator - but it's possible to kill at least 11 and probably more with the ammo load from one Spit - and that's without even using deflection shooting, just from plugging away from 6 o'clock. You say it takes 4 rounds. It can take 19 or probably much more, depending on where they hit. Just down off the front page we have a thread saying that the Ki84 takes 4 x 45mm shells from the Yak9K - not something I've ever been able to make it do, myself.

It is all about where you shoot, and making the shots you get count.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"You say it takes 4 rounds. It can take 19 or probably much more, depending on where they hit."
Yes I know pretty well that. But you couldn't prove that a Ki-84 can take 34 hispano hits.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

You talk about ineffective HE rounds (and that's where the MG151/20 advantage is)
So should I understand that you agree with me that MG151 is somewhat undermodelled?

Well in 1.21 MG151/20 together with MK-108 were much more effective ,and the latter rely extremely on its HE power . So why should Oleg change the things in AEP?

clint-ruin
03-27-2004, 04:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Yes I know pretty well that. But you couldn't prove that a Ki-84 can take 34 hispano hits.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got bored proving a pretty academic point - you will find similar things with the ShVAK and B20 and just about every other gun in the game. When hits are distributed over multiple DM sections, they're less effective than concentrated fire. As I mentioned, the problem with the Hispano seems to be more to do with the high percentage of APs [and compared to 151/20 AP is a -far- more effective round] which blow tanks and structural spars and engines away with great ease.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You talk about ineffective HE rounds (and that's where the MG151/20 advantage is)
So should I understand that you agree with me that MG151 is somewhat undermodelled?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No more than any other rounds HE capabilities are undermodelled, but since the MG shots rely far more on pressure/shockwave damage than fragments or penetration of the round, they do particularly badly out of it. This is due to failure events that just aren't simulated in the DM, for any plane.

I've mentioned a couple of ideas as to how this might be adjusted to be more representative before.. but I wouldn't bet on either of them being implemented at this point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well in 1.21 MG151/20 together with MK-108 were much more effective ,and the latter rely extremely on its HE power . So why should Oleg change the things in AEP?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, I see this a lot, but I really can't replicate it, try as I might. I have some fairly detailed records of how many shots it takes to induce structural failure from 151/15, UBS, MG131, Browning .50, ShVAK/B20, NS37, M4, MK103, MK108, and on how many hits of each type of shell were required to kill a target.

All of that data is from 1.21.

I have not seen any component take more punishment in 2.00 other than in a couple of extreme examples from the newer planes [P-38, P-63]. The ones I've found of those were hosted and a link emailed to Maddox.

The only difference I have found is that the small caliber rounds [MG15/17/.303/.30] seem to have greater penetration and more likelyhood of starting fuel tank fires, but I have almost zero working data on these rounds from 1.21 - just hits required vs engine for engine fires. So that's a fairly subjective impression too.

JTDs re-ran some of his original tests and found that there was a difference [11%?] in rounds required for a kill from 1.21, but that's from parking on 6 and firing - not against any one component but just firing and counting hits vs fired vs rounds per kill. The difference, if there is one in AEP, probably shows up in some secondary factor in the damage modelling, like fragment distribution or penetration values against DMs. His tests were also done through the online-anticheat layer which as far as I know is being looked at as a possible cause of these issues by Maddox.

Safe to say - in terms of making shots on targets and actually landing them on a component repeatedly - I haven't found anything, after a good couple of weeks testing between playing now. Assuming you are doing what you should probably be trying to do in the first place - damaging the same section multiple times - there's not a great deal of difference to be found.

I've asked people before now to name any figure for any gun to take down a specific component that is more than was required in 1.21 and noone seemed to be able to mention any specifics shell vs structure that could be tested. Feel up to the challenge?

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WWMaxGunz
03-27-2004, 04:17 AM
If you change that 151/20 undermodelled to all explosion damage seeming too weak then I'll agree.


Neal

Tipo_Man
03-27-2004, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If you change that 151/20 undermodelled to all explosion damage seeming too weak then I'll agree.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I change it. Obviously some took mentioning a german gun in the thread subject as a one -side biased whine.

In fact ShVAK for example looks also quite weakened.

The biggest problem is that fighter planes often can take several MK-108 or even NS-45 hits and continue flying .
I remember Oleg's words in some thread that comparing a MK-108 shell to a NS-45 mm shell is like comparing NS-45 to 88mm flak38. (He means that NS-45 is much more powerful than MK-108).
But now some fighters can absorb 2 or 3 HE hits from NS-45 !!!

zugfuhrer
03-27-2004, 03:18 PM
Please when you are improving the damagemodel, include the radiators so that a hit in the radiators of a Me 109 and other inline engined planes, makes it loosing cooling liquid.

Enofinu
04-03-2004, 06:18 AM
im just wondering why German He is so much weaker than british one, just look the table:

MG 151/20
// APIT - HE - HE - MG - MG
APIT
mass = 0.115
speed = 710.0
power = 0.0036

HE
mass = 0.115
speed = 705.0
power = 0.0044 &lt;---- here, not so much
compared to british
HE round, why so weak?

MG
mass = 0.092
speed = 775.0
power = 0.0186

Hispano-Suiza Mk.I
// HET - AP - HE - AP

HE/HET
mass = 0.129
speed = 860.0
power = 0.012 &lt;--- and here is over twice
the damage of german He
round.
AP
mass = 0.124
speed = 860.0
power = 0

Gershy
04-03-2004, 07:09 AM
Some things I noticed about the DM:

Some planes seem to have certain weak points which get destroyed easily even with the lightest guns in the game:

Gunsight in FW190
Elevator in Bf110 (that's the thing i lose most of the time no matter if its AAA or fighters attacking me)

and
20mm seem too weak. Especially against Yaks and other russian fighters. I read accounts from German pilots saying that very few 20mm hits were more than enough to take the wing of a Yak but in AEP you waste half or more of your ammo on downing 1. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif It was much better in 1.2r and 1.21 imho

-----------------------------

So long.We wish you well.
You told us how you weren't afraid to die.
Well then, so long.Don't cry.
Or feel too down.
Not all martyrs see divinity.
But at least you tried.

Jippo01
04-03-2004, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Definitely - I was just posting that I'd actually found any reference to sub 45mm scoring T-34 kills. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ju-87 G pilots made several hundred claims with 37mm's. Of course it was a dedicated AT 37mm, but still smaller than 45mm... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Jippo01
04-03-2004, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
im just wondering why German He is so much weaker than british one, just look the table:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting...

Why do the German API and HE rounds have the same chemical energy?? I doubt that they had even nearly similar HE content.

Good question!


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2004, 08:28 AM
HE rounds may be for fragmentation, blast effect or some balance of the two. Olegs' power seems to be blast effect. The chart says fragments are modelled on the same line that explains 'power' as 'here is the TNT' but we can't be sure from the words in the chart if 'power' includes fragments with blast effect. Possibly not if the news from China is that fragment effect is missing. Fragemnt arrows appear in arcade playback, but yet they seem to have no effect on pilots and crew so maybe that shows the place where the code is not working, the actual damaging and not the paths.

There were some posts from Oleg when the table first was posted that explained some things better but not much description. It might be good if some time he can have a translator to save him time with these things as I am pretty sure that he can answer faster and better in Russian than English, at least for making announcements of how things are to document what may be told in unambiguous ways. For short answers there's no need but when it comes to these debates the heavy lack of specific information only makes room for confusion and endless cycles of maybes, claims and counter-claims. None of that is satisfying.

I well remember that before the release of FB, Oleg had said there would be information released on matters being asked about continually, including performance figures used in the sim. It is still not open. I do realize that writing documents takes time, a lot of time so I don't push. The Guns and Ammo Table is just one such but it is the only one outside the Object Viewer which is often obsoleted by the next patch if it was accurate upon release.


Neal

BBB_Hyperion
04-03-2004, 08:59 AM
For educational uses.

For Mg151/20 Ap/HE/HEI contents and energie calc.(We have 50 % AP in FB LW order to use against IL2s)

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

The 37 mm gun with tugsten core ammo

100 mm / 300 m / 90 degrees, and 60 mm / 300m / 60 degrees

250,000 joules Joules needed for that .

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

From E'stelle Rechlin E6 7.43

Projectile weight 410g +- 8 g

Muzzle Velocity
m v (m/s)
0 1146
100 1094
200 1043
300 993
400 944

This means bk37 mm is able to to archive mentioned specs.

Here you find a original report about 20 mm effects first part is about smaller arms dont mix it up.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe2/index.html
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe2/Bewaffnung/20mm_Geschoss.pdf

Seems online in general all mine shells are too weak regardless of side hopefully next patch will fix it.)

Regards,
Hyperion

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2004, 09:28 AM
If these charts are right:

151/20 rounds are 20x82? (from 2nd table)

HE projectile weight is 115gm? With 3.2% explosive? Makes 3.68gm explosive?

MG projectile weight is 92gm? With 22% explosive? Makes 20.24gm explosive?

Is this right?

I have it on "highest self-appointed authority" that the MG rounds have exactly 18.6gm of explosive, just as the power number on Olegs' chart is. How can this be? That chart on that site must be rubbish! Wrong, wrong, wrong! (laaa-de-dah!)


Neal

Kurfurst__
04-03-2004, 12:35 PM
Neal being his usual self.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/Bordwaffen/151minegr.jpg

Exactly 18.6g Nitropenta Neal, as in Oleg`s chart... your conclusion?

How did you say, Neal? "highest self-appointed authority" - that referred to what you hold yourself ?



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/bf110_2.jpg

Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us.
And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below :
For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Sat April 03 2004 at 11:44 AM.]

Jippo01
04-03-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I have it on "highest self-appointed authority" that the MG rounds have exactly 18.6gm of explosive, just as the power number on Olegs' chart is. How can this be? That chart on that site must be rubbish! Wrong, wrong, wrong! (laaa-de-dah!)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


There were several types of MG with different explosive content.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2004, 03:56 PM
Thanks, Jippo.

Maybe someone should still contact the person who put that chart up just for giving a head's up to include such info.


Neal

BBB_Hyperion
04-04-2004, 02:56 AM
Mailed him to fix it. Obviously a big fault 20.24 g- 18.6 g = 1.64 g wrong .) Well for the cartridge calc it may effect the overall power.

Regards,
Hyperion

Routa
04-04-2004, 06:59 AM
Don't you use Google? This could increase your expertise:

http://www.munavia-21.org/20x81mauser151.htm

In addition the main page has some interesting looking links.

WWMaxGunz
04-04-2004, 08:53 AM
My Francais is so far gone that I can't say it in French! And ever, I'd have needed a dictionary to read that site, it'd have taken all day!

I'm wondering if I misinterpreted Olegs' post way back. Maybe he was saying the model used an equivalent power in TNT for all the shells (one variable, parameter, memory storage point, what have you pre-calced to save a multiple at runtime) and the difference in explosives is taken into account and I just read it as the power line meaning equivalent power, which in english is what I remember seeing but words are not as definite as numbers and examples using them. Even numbers are only as good as the labels attached.


Neal

Jippo01
04-04-2004, 09:04 AM
I believe that you're right Neal. IIRC numbers were in TNT.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Enofinu
04-04-2004, 01:43 PM
There were two different minengeschoss ammo in 20mm. other held some 18g of PETN, and it was early model minengeschoss ammo. later germans found way to compress PETN, and in those 20mm rounds there was 25g of PETN.
18g of PETN is same as 39,78g of TNT
25g of PETN is same as 55,25g of TNT

dont know if there were compresses rounds for mk108.
but normal 30mm minengeschoss had 85g of PETN, same as 187,86g of TNT!! over two times more than there is TNT in handgrenade. :O

that Neal what we are trying (at least i am)say.

WWMaxGunz
04-04-2004, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
I believe that you're right Neal. IIRC numbers were in TNT.


-jippo

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the table numbers are for equivalent TNT only then they must be off. PTN and RDX are multiply more powerful than TNT.

However, if the shell itself and fragments and whatever else is in the equation to get that number then I don't know what to say. Perhaps the power figure takes in more than just blast effect? I see the power number of the MG as lower than the mass at that one site but the same as Ises' and yet I see the HE number as higher than the mass at that one site and none from Ise. So I figure, wait for Oleg.

Back when I made my own big firecrackers I learned that the powder isn't as important as what you put it in, even with good powder you could get less. But then that wasn't high explosives and the guys making those shells knew their stuff very well, the German tradition with chemistry, explosives and precision goes way back. Not saying the others were slouches either! But where were the best explosives developed back then and who had them?


Neal

La7_BLitz
04-05-2004, 12:14 AM
sometimes i fly with unrealistic gunnery just because you dont need to hit rediccouloius amounts of 20mm on your target

Enofinu
04-05-2004, 09:12 AM
I have a wish...
i wish that there would be damage modelling with mcuh improved formulas. i mean machine gun and cannon damage.
machineguns should make penetrating damage with incendiary effect if that kind of rounds is used. what it means, mg:s should not rip wings or tail off so easily like now. (comparing to cannon fire)
mg rounds now transfers all of em Kinetic energy (KE) to target which is really wrong. if mg round doesnt hit anything internal parts in its way thru the airplane it should do really minimal damage.
but it should do damage when it hits something, there should the KE take its place, like when hitting pilot seat armor, does it penetrate armor? does it penetrate fuel tank armor? is there enought Ke for that? from what angle shot comes to that armor? does it deflect?
if it goes thru armor plate, it then should make fuel tank leak/burn/explode, or kill/wound pilot. there is many things which can be destroyed with mg fire, like engine, wing main spar, oxygen container(big internal blact), controls, pilot, fueltank etc. but it still should not rip planes so easily and transfer every KJ in target, if there isnt anything in its patch.

while cannons should really rip things apart, chemical blast effect which rips plane skin and framework, better incendiary effect (bigger amounts of incendiary stuff in these rounds) bigger fuel leaks, which self seal cant seal anymore. fragments which can make some more damage. and AP ammo too which makes damage as machinegun ammo, but with its own calculated KE.


imagine a two metallic barrels, other is shotted with .50cal(12,7mm) and other with 20mm cannon with delayed he rounds. which will make barrel look nastier after some 10 hits?

.50cal makes bout 13-14mm holes in it while 20mm makes something much bigger http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

thats what i dream of.

Jippo01
04-05-2004, 11:36 AM
Good dream Enofinu, that surely is something to wish for.

And about TNT amounts, of course they are then wrong numbers for power if they really were in TNT. I am not absolutely sure...


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Ring-
04-05-2004, 04:57 PM
http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/ammo/ww2ol-weapons.htm


http://prodocs.netfirms.com

http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/info/ammo/20mmandbombs.jpg

WWMaxGunz
04-05-2004, 08:21 PM
That 1st chart is an interesting way of comparing.


Neal

zugfuhrer
04-06-2004, 01:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Actualy the .50 AP ammunition could penetrate the top armor of some German or Soviet tanks Ie, US penetration data for the M2 show penetration @300m of :

21mm @ 90?
13mm @ 60?
5mm @ 30?

So .50 AP was more then capable of defeating some tank's top armor Ie, PzKpfw IVH/J, top turret armor @ 16-25mm, T-34-76/42 was 16mm, , T-34-85 20mm, PzKpfw VG 16mm @ 90?, & this doesn't include top hull armor which was usualy much less Ie, PzKpfw IVH/J top hull armor was 11mm, PzKpfw VG 16mm etc.

Problem is an fighter Ie, a P-47 would have to make an vertical 90? dive to do it, with no hope of pull out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

The 20mm was not any better even with APCR. 30mm could take out tanks by aiming at vital spots Ie, top hull, top turret, rear engine deck armor etc, with the Mk 101's ammunition performance of 75mm @ 0? @ 300m etc. Remember AC attack tanks not on the frontal arc, where their armor is strongest, but in their weakest area the upper armor.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu March 25 2004 at 06:27 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its not so easy to explain penetration. What sort of armour was this test from?
The hardness of the armour (Brinell) is very important for penetration of specially small calibre and thin armour. A "soft" armour, that it less hard than the penetrator, is much easier to penetrate than vice versa.

And for Patton, I am sure he wouldnt sit in any american operational tank of 1944 and duell a Royal tiger. The sherman was called Ronson, it allways light up.

Enofinu
04-06-2004, 09:06 AM
about penetration:
cannon round can penetrate 100mm rha steel.
if u douple the ammo weight and the velocity stays same,round can penetrate 200mm rha steel.
but if ammo keeps same weight but speed is doubled, penetration is 4 times better.

armor efficiency againt KE ammo with multipliers with different angle of armor

angles in german/russian style:
90` = 1
70` = 1,2
60` = 1,28
45` = 2,8
30` = 3

in england/US angles are opposite way 90` = 0`

dunno why i put this here with my excellent english skill http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Enofinu
04-06-2004, 09:11 AM
Ring, incendiary stuff is not counted in your tables :/ well, it would be hard to make formulas for them.

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zugfuhrer:

Its not so easy to explain penetration. What sort of armour was this test from?
The hardness of the armour (Brinell) is very important for penetration of specially small calibre and thin armour. A "soft" armour, that it less hard than the penetrator, is much easier to penetrate than vice versa.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The US test plate was 220-250BHN, useing standard 50% penetration critera.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

And for Patton, I am sure he wouldnt sit in any american operational tank of 1944 and duell a Royal tiger. The sherman was called Ronson, it allways light up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quote has nothing to do with what you believe it does, Patton made it in response to reporters continueing questions about US tanks vs German tanks. In other words Patton would not allow the American public to get the impression US troops feared anything German, or anything German was better then US equiptment.

Lets also not forget the German nickname for the PzKpfw IVH/J either Rotbart der Hauchdünne http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Or the fact the Panther
and Tiger II burned as easiily on turret penetrations, as the Sherman ever did. Thats the reason German Tiger II crews never carried ammunition in the turret ammunition racks after the events with 501 in Poland, where single turret penetrations caused catostrauphic loss, due to externaly stored ammunition.

The Sherman burned so easily because of crew carelessness in stocking up to 30 shells openly on the turret floor. Once this practice was abolished & WET stowage was added fewer then 10% of all Shermans hit burned, compared to 60 - 80% previously.


Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue April 06 2004 at 11:07 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2004, 09:49 AM
There ya go Ise! You can say my BS is worthy of Patton! (no, I don't much like him as a person)

I've read a German quote that spoke of 1 Tiger could defeat 20 Shermans but then invariably the 21st Sherman came up the road. That's only a metaphor and not straight tactics, 1 by 1 the Tiger could sit until no more ammo I believe at least until the Fireflys and those Shermans with the gyro stabilized turrets that didn't have to stop to fire and still had heavy odds too!

I like the Tiger I very much but I read some things they were not so good at. One was fuel use and another was how far between repairs. Even worse for the King Tigers. But great guns, great optics, beautiful AP systems and other advanced features all good. Just very hard to make enough and keep them all going, not so good. Russian T-34/85's in numbers I think was maybe the best hardware.


Neal

crazyivan1970
04-06-2004, 10:38 AM
Another dead issue guys, wait till the patch, then restart it if not satisfied http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Kurfurst__
04-06-2004, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
The quote has nothing to do with what you believe it does, Patton made it in response to reporters continueing questions about US tanks vs German tanks. In other words Patton would not allow the American public to get the impression US troops feared anything German, or anything German was better then US equiptment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems Patton has many followers, perhaps even actual reincarnations posting on this board. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Lets also not forget the German nickname for the PzKpfw IVH/J either _Rotbart der Hauchdünne_ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely the Pz IV was short lived compared to Godess Panther, but let`s not forget most Shermans never seen anything better than a short 75mm - even in the end of 1944, 3/4 of the Shermans have only this gun. This gun was virtually useless vs. the PzIVH/J`s frontal armor, being 80mm thickness - British live tests showed this armor was still very unlikely to be defeated as close as 100 yards with the 75mm gun.
Pz IVH on the other hand could easily knock out a Sherman from well over a kilometer, not to mention it was much easier to hide, being a lot less tall. I would take a good old Panzervier over a Sherman anytime. Not so uber as Panther, you will have to work for your kill, still, you are at good advantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Or the fact the Panther and Tiger II burned as easiily on turret penetrations, as the Sherman ever did.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have some doubts of this, considering the more safe powder the Germans used - which also produced less muzzle flash btw. The main problem is, it was very hard to actually penetrate the turret of a Panther, not to mention the Tiger II... there are countless oral stories from US crewman hitting a Tiger II repeatadly, then all it does is turning the turret, and knock out the annoying fellow with a single blow. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/dasboot.jpg
Final shot. Prepeare to fire! Target speed: 0. "Check" Range, 650 meters. "Check" Depth: 4 meters. Torpedo speed: three-zero. Aiming point..forward of after mast.
Tube I., ready? "Tube I. ready!" Tube I....! "Tube I." Fire! "Fire. Torpedo running!"


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below : For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

PzKpfw
04-06-2004, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

[QUOTE]
Surely the Pz IV was short lived compared to Godess Panther, but let`s not forget most Shermans never seen anything better than a short 75mm - even in the end of 1944, 3/4 of the Shermans have only this gun. This gun was virtually useless vs. the PzIVH/J`s frontal armor, being 80mm thickness - British live tests showed this armor was still very unlikely to be defeated as close as 100 yards with the 75mm gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The 75mm on the Sherman was more then capable of dealing with the PzKpfw IV frontaly at all standard battle ranges, Ie, the Soviets used the M4A2 75mm quite successfuly vs the PzKpfw IV.

Soviet penetration curves for M72 AP, show a penetration of over 100mm at 250m (M61 APCBC could penetrate 91mm at 0m). Soviet tankers reported they had little trouble defeating the Tiger E's side turret armor (80mm @ 0?) & side hull armor (60mm @ 0?), or superstructure (80mm @ 0?) but had problems vs the glacis (100mm @ 9?).

Also you are you conviently forgetting UK Shermans with 17 pounder's? Ie, 21st Army Group as of May 5 1945 had 1,235 Shermans with 17lb & 1,915 Sherman 75. Or the US TD arm which had an abundance M-10 & M-18s armed with 76mm guns & all the APCR-T they could want to go with them.

You might find it interesting that the Germans found, the M4A2 Sherman glacis @ 47? from vertical, was more effective than T34 45mm (high hardness plate 429 - 495 BHN equivalent to 113mm vertical) @ 60? from vertical vs German 7.5 & 8.8cm ammo. The Germans found that PzKpfw IVH 7.5cm PzGr.39 could not penetrate the M4A2 glacis @ 1000m, but it could penetrate the T-34 glacis @ 1000m.


You might want to get hold of a copy of:

WW II BALLISTICS: Armor and Gunnery L. Bird and R. Livingston, Overmatch Press.

When you get a chance.

The Sherman 75mm & PzKpfw IV were about evenly matched, both could kill each other frontaly from all standard battle ranges, Ie, US tankers reported regular frontal pentrations of the PzKpfw IV from 500 - 800yrds, prefered range was 500yrds.

And this doesnt even bring up the vulnerability of the PzKpfw IVH/J mantlet & turret front which could be penetrated even by 37mm fire from Stuarts and was, on several documented occasions. Most WW2 tank losses were from turret front penetrations, Ie a Soviet study in 1944 found over 60% of their tanks were KO'd by TF penetrations.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I have some doubts of this, considering the more safe powder the Germans used - which also produced less muzzle flash btw. The main problem is, it was very hard to actually penetrate the turret of a Panther, not to mention the Tiger II... there are countless oral stories from US crewman hitting a Tiger II repeatadly, then all it does is turning the turret, and knock out the annoying fellow with a single blow. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had no doubt you would have some doubts about it, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. It's not hard to penetrate the turret of a Panther especialy from its side armor, which is exactly what I was speaking of 45mm @ 25?, Ie, the below excerpts from the REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF BOARD OF OFFICERS
Organization: Headquarters, First U.S. Army.
from 1944 live fire tests vs Panther tanks:

3) 37mm Gun, M6, Mounted on Light Tank, M5A1
APC, M51 will penetrate the sides and rear of the 'Panther' Tank at 600 yards.

5) 57mm Gun, M1
a) APC, M86 will penetrate the sides and rear of the 'Panther' Tank at 1500 yards.

6) 75mm Gun, M3, mounted on Medium Tank, M4
a) APC M61 will penetrate the sides and rear of the 'Panther' Tank up to 1500 yards. APC M61 at 200 yards will not penetrate the front armor of the 'Panther' Tank.


7) 3-inch Gun, M5, mounted on Motor Carriage, M10
a) APC M62, w/BDF M66A1 will not penetrate front glacis slope plate at 200 yards. Will penetrate gun mantlet at 200 yards and penetrate sides and rear of the 'Panther' Tank up to 1500 yards.

8) 90mm Gun, M1A1, AA
AP M77 will penetrate front glacis slope plate up to 600 yards, the gun mantlet up to 1,000 yards and the turret up to 1,500 yards.


Combat reports from Soviet, US/UK tankers all support side penetrations often produced catostrauphic results Ie, the Panther burned out.

An Wa Pruef 1 report dated 05.10.44 on the Panthers estimated vulnerability vs Allied weapon sytems shows the 75mm penetrateing the side turret armor out to 1500m (see above for accuracy of estimations).

it was no difrent in the Tiger II's 80mm @ 21? side turret armor as sHPz.Abt 501 found out as evident from their war diary entry adequately shows Ie,

*11.08.44- The attack is stopped in face of strong resistance. Only 8 tanks are available for the action. A hidden T-34/85 of the 53rd Guards Tank Brigade ambushes them near Ogledo and knocks out several Tiger IIs (3 tanks are totally destroyed). The ammunition stowed in the turrets causes fatal explosions, killing many crew members. Following this, no 8.8 cm ammunition is stowed in the turret anymore, reduceing the stowage to 68 rounds

So much for that superior German 'more safe powder'. This led to most of the Tiger II Abts following the same procedure. The same occured in Panther side hull & turret penetrations. In another example dureing Zitdelle an Panther Ausf D was penetrated & knocked out with a mantlet (100mm) penetration by an 45mm sub-calibre round, from an AT-gun. The Soviet LF testing on captured Ausf D's after Zitadelle never duplicated the penetration.

The action with s.H.Pz 501 was done by a single T-34-85 commanded by Lt. Aleksandr P. Oskin 53rd Guard Tank Brigade operateing with 6th Guards Tank Corps. Oskin ambushed the Tiger II's openeing up broadside on them from 200m & used all of his BR-365P sub-calibre rounds, for side turret & side hull penetrations. This was the first appearence of Tiger II on the Eastren front.


*See: Schneider Wolfgang. Tigers in Combat Vol 1, p.45

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue April 06 2004 at 11:03 PM.]

carguy_
04-06-2004, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Another dead issue guys, wait till the patch, then restart it if not satisfied http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We`ll se about that Mr.samrtie pants. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

crazyivan1970
04-06-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Another dead issue guys, wait till the patch, then restart it if not satisfied http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We`ll se about that Mr.samrtie pants. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does samrtie pants mean? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

carguy_
04-06-2004, 06:26 PM
Dammit!I meant smartie pants arg! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
04-07-2004, 12:45 AM
Crazyivan, I didn't want to post this in the "AEP questions thread" that you made a sticky (thanks for that, nice job), so this was the next most appropriate thread.

Just wanted to give a big thanks for the great news about weapon/DM changes being online and offline, that is exactly what I wanted to hear and I am very excited to get back into AEP once patch is released (just taking a minor break which is needed once in awhile, a break for me being relative http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

Great job as a mod btw, don't let guys get to you too much http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Cheers, have one on me.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

GK.
04-07-2004, 12:58 AM
tick tock.
a watched pot never boils.

clint-ruin
04-07-2004, 01:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Another dead issue guys, wait till the patch, then restart it if not satisfied http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we are truly going to get rid of the Il-2 series DM generosity [crap AP penetration through aluminium, HE shells that can't start a fire, etc] then that's going to be excellent.

I shudder to see what people make of the UB/ShKAS after this, though, given that they already seem to attract whines like moths to a candle :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

PikeBishop
04-07-2004, 03:17 AM
Hello all.

Can I just say that I have tried to read through all the posts on this topic but knowing nothing about how these things are turned into events on the computer screen I just don't see how all the things you are considering can be put into the program. I personally get the feeling that when an aircraft is introduced it might have various set routines to get a specific effect and then it is adjusted/refined later especially if the desired relative patterns are not displayed in a realistic and consistent manner. Making an aeroplane behave in a certain way to me is a lot easier than these gunnery problems......too many variables to consider for my liking.........Glad its not my job......whoever is responsible for creating these hit and damage probabilities......you have my full support and sympathy!

regards,

SLP

Enofinu
04-07-2004, 08:30 AM
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons7.html thas link for russian test againts King tigers armor with different cannons. notice how good penetration damage KWk88/71 has (the cannon what king tiger had).
it penetrated frontal armor of turret and also came out from rear turret http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 2 nice holes in turret.

Crazyivan, in beta3 i could fire 4 hits on 109:s wing with mk108, 2 on both wing, 3 of em was minengeschoss ammo and one was HE. 109 didnt loose its wings. have track from that.

PzKpfw
04-07-2004, 09:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
thas link for russian test againts King tigers armor with different cannons. notice how good penetration damage KWk88/71 has (the cannon what king tiger had).
it penetrated frontal armor of turret and also came out from rear turret http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 2 nice holes in turret.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Eno the Kw.K 43 was a great gun, and Val has a great site in RB.


It's realy no suprise the Tiger II in the tests had been shot up during another battle, and the quality of German armor had been steadily declineing since 1943 due to shortages of raw materials & a decline in quality control at German factories. Ie, concerning the Tiger E:

The Watertown Arsenal(WAL 710/542) on the Tiger E armor, points out a few instances where the armor was ballisticly not up to par with other German plate examined previuosly Ie, the PzKpfw III, and indicated a decline in German quality control. The Report was done on an Tiger E from Tunisia.


Hull Side plate: 3.2in thick 352 BHN.


All Plates except one, the hull side plate, were of acceptable quality steel. Excessively large ammount of segregated nonmetallic inclusions, which appeared as laminations in the fracture test, were observed on examination of this plate.

Main Front plate 4.0in 321BHN

Improper heat treatment of the main front plate and the hull side plate wa1s reflected in poor notched bar impact strength which,in turn, would be associated with poor resistance to cracking under ballistic attack.

Heat-treating tests were conducted which revealed that approximately the same notch bar impact strength could be obtained by a normalize and draw of a small section as was observed in the 4" main front plate as recieved.

The report goes into detail on German welding practices as well:


Welding and Joint design:

The Joint design is characterized by grooves machined in the heavy section of each weld joint to give a fitted or mortised joint which is in compression on impact from the direction of principal ballistic attack. Fit-up is fairly good.

Rough surface appearence, severe undercutting, and failure to completely fill the joint grooves with weld material indicate inexperience or carelessness on the part of the welders.

All welds were made up of multiple overlapping beads and appear to have been deposited, without preheat, on the armor in the final heat-treated condition. Very ex tensive base metal cracks were present in the heat affected zones of the three weld joint samples and sections from the samples break through these cracks on light impact with a hammer.

This examination revealed an amazeing lack of concern by German fabrication and inspection facilites, for base metal cracks w hich (1) would ordinarily be expected in welding of this high carbon armor plate, (2) must have occured soon after welding and were so extensive that they probably could have been detected by any of the usual inspection methods,and (3) are universally recognized to have a very serious effect on shock ressistance of the welded structure.


The Plates examined were:

Hull Roof Plate - 1.0in 363BHN
Turret Roof Plate - 1.0in 321BHN
Hull Side Plate - 3.2in 352BHN
Turret Side Plate - 3.2in 352BHN
Main Front Plate - 4.0in 321BHN
Front Glacis Plate - 2.4in 352BHN



Ie, the below are excerpts from the Soviet live fire tests & from TsNII-48 on the Tiger II armor quality:


1. The quality of armor on the "Tiger-B" tank, in comparison with the armor on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as early production "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun, has sharply deteriorated. The first individual impacts caused cracks and spalling in the armor of the "Tiger-B" tank. Groups of shell impacts (3-4 shells) caused large-scale spalling and fractures in the armor.

7. The tank's side armor plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.


During lab tests of the "Tiger-B" tank's armor, conducted at TsNII-48, it was noted that there had been an "evident gradual decline in the quantity of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the "Tiger-B's" armor. An advantage of domestic armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleably.

The same results were being seen by the US & UK on examination of Panther & Tiger E armor. Ie, Basicly Tiger II and Panther glacis armor, was consistently poor in Allied reports on tests of armor quality, but smaller plates and cast, on the rest of the tank did not show poor resistance. The Soviets & British both stated after examinations of the Tiger II armor was ballisticly inferior to the Panther armor in resistance.


Comparison BHN between the Panther, & Tiger II:

Panther:

Glacis 290
lower hull side 555/277 face-hardened
tail plate 282

Tiger II (Henschel):

Glacis 220
lower hull side 264
tail plate 225
turret side 280
supperstructure side 302

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

Kurfurst__
04-07-2004, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
The 75mm on the Sherman was more then capable of dealing with the PzKpfw IV frontaly at all standard battle ranges, Ie, the Soviets used the M4A2 75mm quite successfuly vs the PzKpfw IV.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Define "standard battle ranges". My take it`s 90m for the Sherman in most cases, and 1000-1500m for the PzIV`s crew. Of course, this is only difference in standards.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Soviet penetration curves for M72 AP, show a penetration of over 100mm at 250m (M61 APCBC could penetrate 91mm at 0m).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice curve on a piece of paper, John. Do you want me to show you a 100mm plate with many, many failed penetrations on it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Soviet tankers reported they had little trouble defeating the Tiger E's side turret armor (80mm @ 0?) & side hull armor (60mm @ 0?), or superstructure (80mm @ 0?) but had problems vs the glacis (100mm @ 9?).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Little trouble"... "Reported". Uhum.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Also you are you conviently forgetting UK Shermans with 17 pounder's? Ie, 21st Army Group as of May 5 1945 had 1,235 Shermans with 17lb & 1,915 Sherman 75.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah... 17 pounder Shermans. In every 5-tank platoon, you may even find 2 with this gun. Did those burned any less then 75mm Shermans? Were those any harder to kill than 75mm Shermans? No. Who hit first, wins the day. Difference is, the Sherman is easier to be hit - the Pz IV is much smaller. Difference is, the 17 pounder never had good rep for accuracy, except in Hogg`s books - supplemented by the poor quality of optics - bye-bye long range fire! Of course PzIV could always call up his bigger sister. And that is some really furious cat, in similiar % as 17pdr Shermans. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So the scenario is, everything equal, we are facing 5 PzIVs, each capable hurting badly the Shermans at long range, vs. 2 17 pdr Shermans that can hurt the panzerviers at range, while the rest 3 Shermans can maybe hope hitting an about 30-40cm tall target (with a gunsight that was virtually useless for pinpoint aiming), otherwise could only enjoy the sounds of rounds shattering on 80mm Krupp steel.. Myself, I choose to be in the PzIV. Of course I am still not invulnerable, but have most advantages on my side, which is why I said I like the good old PzIV in the first place - it`s "limited Uberness".


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Or the US TD arm which had an abundance M-10 & M-18s armed with 76mm guns & all the APCR-T they could want to go with them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...Jagdpanzer IV/70 vs. M-10 ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But we don`t a Jagdpanzer here. For those TDs, a lone Vierling is dead scary already, or even a Landser with a granade..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You might find it interesting that the Germans found, the M4A2 Sherman glacis @ 47? from vertical, was more effective than T34 45mm (high hardness plate 429 - 495 BHN equivalent to 113mm vertical) @ 60? from vertical vs German 7.5 & 8.8cm ammo.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviet armor quality was bad thanks to brittle steel used, and the Sherman has thicker plates, meaning better effiency vs. larger calibers; not to mention hardly ever the German long 75s had problem with the "dreaded" T-34 frontal armor - everybody who dealt with the subject knows that, so what? What`s the point? Rhetorics? Probably.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Germans found that PzKpfw IVH 7.5cm PzGr.39 could not penetrate the M4A2 glacis @ 1000m, but it could penetrate the T-34 glacis @ 1000m.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reference to the German _test_ ? Or is it the constantly changing findings of Lorrin and co? I like Lorrin`s work, but using his estimations/calculations as a solid reference...



The Sherman 75mm & PzKpfw IV were about evenly matched, both could kill each other frontaly from all standard battle ranges, Ie, US tankers reported regular frontal pentrations of the PzKpfw IV from 500 - 800yrds, prefered range was 500yrds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And this doesnt even bring up the vulnerability of the PzKpfw IVH/J mantlet & turret front which could be penetrated even by 37mm fire from Stuarts and was, on several documented occasions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what range, John? 50 yards? 100 yards? Let me see, the PzIV`s TF was "vulnerable", because once upon a time Stuart situted a few yards away, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PzIV`s main gun, penetrated the mantlet...?

What range can the KwK 40 L/48 punch a nice hole into to Sherman`s front 89mm cast mantlet, John? Assuming head-on, like you did before in your examples... ? Just a quick guess - 1500m?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Most WW2 tank losses were from turret front penetrations, Ie a Soviet study in 1944 found over 60% of their tanks were KO'd by TF penetrations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soviets used German tanks, with German way of distributing armor? Or was it like Soviet tanks generally had sloped, relatively well protected hull front, but only avarage turret armor?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I had no doubt you would have some doubts about it, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. It's not hard to penetrate the turret of a Panther especialy from its side armor, which is exactly what I was speaking of 45mm @ 25?, Ie, the below excerpts from the REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF BOARD OF OFFICERS
Organization: Headquarters, First U.S. Army.
from 1944 live fire tests vs Panther tanks:

....[ results of tests cut ]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s nice John. Why not the full story? The data below refer to "perfect", 90 degree strikes on armor. You know that... what percentage is that to real life combats - there is always an angle.. Even from a moderate 45 degree side angle, you effectively face the T-34`s front slope in the form a Panther side - that is no-go for most of these guns you mentioned.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Combat reports from Soviet, US/UK tankers all support side penetrations often produced catostrauphic results Ie, the Panther burned out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The key to this statement is the subjectively defined meaning of "often". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So much for that superior German 'more safe powder'.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dyglikol based powder is in just about every way superior to Nitroglycerin based powder.. cheaper, safer, less wear on barrel, and doesn`t make huge flashes... try to live with that, John, it`s a fact.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This led to most of the Tiger II Abts following the same procedure.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source? Listing of units, or any actualities?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The same occured in Panther side hull & turret penetrations. In another example dureing Zitdelle an Panther Ausf D was penetrated & knocked out with a mantlet (100mm) penetration by an 45mm sub-calibre round, from an AT-gun. The Soviet LF testing on captured Ausf D's after Zitadelle never duplicated the penetration.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Subject was PzIV vs. Sherman. I don`t see what Panther, Zitadelle, and a single case of a 45mm ATG has to do with that... T-34s were knocked out with 2cm AA guns during Barbarossa, so...?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The action with s.H.Pz 501 was done by a single T-34-85 commanded by Lt. Aleksandr P. Oskin 53rd Guard Tank Brigade operateing with 6th Guards Tank Corps. Oskin ambushed the Tiger II's openeing up broadside on them from 200m & used all of his BR-365P sub-calibre rounds, for side turret & side hull penetrations. This was the first appearence of Tiger II on the Eastren front.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great story John. And the Big Picture? Actions of, uhm, 3 or so Konigstigers holding a village in hungary early 1945 vs. a whole soviet tank brigade, knocking out some 40+ T-34s for NO losses? One attack wave butchered after the other... Or how about the combat record of Tiger II`s of the 503.? Knocking out ~250 ATGs amd 250 Soviet tanks for like - 10 destroyed Tiger IIs in combat..? This gives some hint what were Comrade Oskin and co.`s chances for survival when he/they met his next Konigstiger. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

An interesting subject on the whole, but if you wish to continue, I suggest we go PM...



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/dasboot.jpg
Final shot. Prepeare to fire! Target speed: 0. "Check" Range, 650 meters. "Check" Depth: 4 meters. Torpedo speed: three-zero. Aiming point..forward of after mast.
Tube I., ready? "Tube I. ready!" Tube I....! "Tube I." Fire! "Fire. Torpedo running!"


Our Messer which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy moment come. Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily Abschuss.
And forgive us our Errors, as We forgive Your Flaws against us. And lead us not into Temptation to dogfight, but deliver us from Those Below : For thine are The Altitude, and The Climbrate, and the MK 108, forever and ever.
Amen.

PzKpfw
04-07-2004, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


Define "standard battle ranges". My take it`s 90m for the Sherman in most cases, and 1000-1500m for the PzIV`s crew. Of course, this is only difference in standards.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Standard battle ranges are limited by terrain, weather conditions etc. Ie, in Nomandy standard battle ranges were anywhere from PB range to 600 - 800m. In fact Applied Operations Research showed tyhat over 50% of all engagements occured @ ranges less than 650 yards.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Nice curve on a piece of paper, John. Do you want me to show you a 100mm plate with many, many failed penetrations on it? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go ahead then show me while your at it, the side turret & side hull armor plates, or hop on over to Vals site & peruse the Tiger II live fire photos & look at the holes in the Tiger II glacis & front turret, side turret etc.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


"Little trouble"... "Reported". Uhum.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blink all you want http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, it doesnt change the fact that the Soviets reported that M72 solid shot AP defeated te Tiger side turret armor.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Ah... 17 pounder Shermans. In every 5-tank platoon, you may even find 2 with this gun. Did those burned any less then 75mm Shermans? Were those any harder to kill than 75mm Shermans? No. Who hit first, wins the day. Difference is, the Sherman is easier to be hit - the Pz IV is much smaller. Difference is, the 17 pounder never had good rep for accuracy, except in Hogg`s books - supplemented by the poor quality of optics - bye-bye long range fire! Of course PzIV could always call up his bigger sister. And that is some really furious cat, in similiar % as 17pdr Shermans. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was refering to your claim on numbers of 76mm Shermans etc, you cannot discuss that w/o includeing Allied Shermans. As to optics etc it's moot, in Westren Europe as opposed to Eastren Europe, their were very few LR engaements, in the West because of terrain limitations.

On what do you base Sherman optics were inferior Ise? I'd realy like to see it, post me 1 Allied technichal report that technicly defines German optics as being superior. Anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof one way or the other.

German tanks had an edge because they were operateing defenseivly Ie, Normandy, they got the first shot more often then not from ambush from hedgrows etc, at under 50 yards
put Allied Shermans in the same position & you'd get similar results.

When the tables were turned, as in Lorraine, & the Ardennes where US tanks & TDs were fighting from defensive positions German armored losses were comparible to Allied.

As to the issue of 17 pounder accuracy, that only affected APDS rounds, 17 pounder APCBC, had an 87% hit rate @ Isigny, compared to 53% for 17 pounder APDS (76MM APCR-T had 83%). Also the Germans were very worried about 17 pounder APCBC effectiveness.

Wa Pruef 1 ommited D.T.D. Range Table 9.3.4. (British 6 pounder APCBC & 17 pounder APCBC effectiveness)dated 24.05.44 from their 05.10.44 presentation (Range tables 9.3.1, 9.3.2, & 9.3.3)on the relative ability of the major opponets to penetrate the Panthers armor.

Range table 9.3.4 showed that 17 pounder APCBC penetrates the Panther @ 2900fps:

Front:
Front Turret - 1600yrds
Mantlet - 2500yrds+
Glacis - 0yrds*
Hull - 400yrds

Side:
Turret - 2500yrds+
Super - 2500yrds+
Hull - 2500yrds+

Rear:
Turret - 2500yrds+
Hull - 2500yrds+

*@ Isigny 2 17 pounder APCBC hits cracked the Panther glacis @ 800yrds. In fact British tests showed The 17 pounder, firing APCBC on a Tiger E had a 50/50 chance of Killing the Tiger E frontaly with the first round @ 2000 yards straight on.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


So the scenario is, everything equal, we are facing 5 PzIVs, each capable hurting badly the Shermans at long range, vs. 2 17 pdr Shermans that can hurt the panzerviers at range, while the rest 3 Shermans can maybe hope hitting an about 30-40cm tall target (with a gunsight that was virtually useless for pinpoint aiming), otherwise could only enjoy the sounds of rounds shattering on 80mm Krupp steel.. Myself, I choose to be in the PzIV. Of course I am still not invulnerable, but have most advantages on my side, which is why I said I like the good old PzIV in the first place - it`s "limited Uberness".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do we have these 4 PzKpfw IVs Ise, what terrain, are they in ambush are they advanceing, whats the weather conditions?. as to advantages what are they? you have guns with similar performance, sloped armor vs straight, the Sherman had a higher profile, Ie, :

M4 Sherman:
Length - 5.89m
Width - 2.62m
Height - 2.74m


PzKpfw IV H/J:
Length - 7.02m
Width - 2.88m
Height - 2.68

The Sherman had a faster turret traverse, and better reliability, as well as superior optics at short to meduim ranges. As to your assertion that the Shermans sight "was virtually useless for pinpoint aiming", please provide some refrences suporting this claim. Ie, US ARMY WWII tank crews trained on hitting stationary and moving targets @ ranges of between 300 - 3000 yards etc. During the September 1944 assault on the Gothic Line, US TD gunners supported the advance by fireing rounds through the gun embrasures of German pillboxes at a range of 1500 yards.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


...Jagdpanzer IV/70 vs. M-10 ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif But we don`t a Jagdpanzer here. For those TDs, a lone Vierling is dead scary already, or even a Landser with a granade..

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jdgpanzer? why do you need a Jagdpanzer, you have that PzKpfw IV. Anyway it's a fixed gun in a chassis vs a turret, do we need to discuss the disadvanteges of that arangement?.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Soviet armor quality was bad thanks to brittle steel used, and the Sherman has thicker plates, meaning better effiency vs. larger calibers; not to mention hardly ever the German long 75s had problem with the "dreaded" T-34 frontal armor - everybody who dealt with the subject knows that, so what? What`s the point? Rhetorics? Probably.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actualy the difrence was in armor quality & the lower BHN on US armor, Ie, US armour was made to deal with overmatching projectiles, while Soviet armor Ie, on the T-34 was designed to defeat undermatching projectiles. Sherman armor retained its resistance, despite multiple penetrations, whereas T-34 armour cracked open. Rhetorics for what?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Reference to the German _test_ ? Or is it the constantly changing findings of Lorrin and co? I like Lorrin`s work, but using his estimations/calculations as a solid
reference...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Constantly changeing findings?. What would you know of Lorrin & Robert's work? if you knew anything of it, then you already know where the data came from. And if you knew anything about just how little imformation exits concerning this subject, you would understand exactly why findings are constantly changeing,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


At what range, John? 50 yards? 100 yards? Let me see, the PzIV`s TF was "vulnerable", because once upon a time Stuart situted a few yards away, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PzIV`s main gun, penetrated the mantlet...?

What range can the KwK 40 L/48 punch a nice hole into to Sherman`s front 89mm cast mantlet, John? Assuming head-on, like you did before in your examples... ? Just a quick guess - 1500m?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What range? why are you asking what range considering the PzKpfw IVH/J turret front armor was only 50mm you should be able to figure it out quite easily yourself. Ie, 1 of the incidents was @ 500yrds, with 3 37mm penetrations of the TF, not to mention British 2 pounders penetrated the TF as well.

Well if that L/48 is faceing an M4A2 not above 1000m http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Other then that threy can kill each other quite easily. It's interesting you claim the 7.5cm Kw.K 40 L/48 could defeat the Sherman glacis @ 1500+m, when Wa Pruef(B) 1/W-2B dated 24.03.44 penetration curves for the Kw.K 40 fireing PzGr.39 APCBC show 99mm @ 1000m @ 60?, and the 7.5cm Kw.K 42 L/70 fireing PzGr.39/42 APCBC, show 138mm @ 60?. Yet the range tables for the Kw.K 42 state max range penetration of the Sherman glacis @ 1000m. The same report states the PzKpfw IV is is far inferior to the T-34-85 and JS 122.

Below is an interesting report from Panzer Regiment 8 on the Grants 75mm gun effectiveness*:

Effect of our weapons against the American Mark III (Pilot), known as "Grant 1" in a British manual:

a. Clean penetration of the side at a range of 500 meters when hit perpindicular to the surface by 5 cm Pzgr.38 rounds fired by 5 cm Kw.K. L/42 or L/60.

b. Defintly determined to be penetrated from the front at a range of 200 to 300 meters by the 5 cm Kw.K L/60.

d. Not a single penetration of the Mark III (American Medium tank) was achieved at a range of 700 meters by any kind of 5 cm round.
2. Effect of the 7.5cm tank gun in the American tank:
a. Even when striking at sharp angles, penetrations were achieved on the front of the Pz.Kpfw. III and Pz.Kpfw IV at ranges from 1200 to 1400 meters.
b. Cleanly penetrated the front of the Pz.Kpfw.III with additional armor (20 mm spaced armor in front of 50 mm base plate) at a range of 500 to 600 meters.

*See: Jentz Thomas L, Panzer Truppen Volume 1 pp. 178 - 179.

Cleanly penetrated PzKpfw III specials 70mm, the PzKpfw IVH/J had 80mm w/o the benifial effects of spaced armor. Grants were scoreing hits @ 1200 - 1400 meters, sorta puts a damper on the idea, that Allied optics "with a gunsight that was virtually useless for pinpoint aiming" couldn't hit anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Soviets used German tanks, with German way of distributing armor? Or was it like Soviet tanks generally had sloped, relatively well protected hull front, but only avarage turret armor?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you mean like the Panther, Ie, relatively well protected frontaly, but only avarage side hull, side turret armor, then yes. As to the German way what was that considering only 2 German tanks used sloped armor, the Panther (as a result of the T-34) and Tiger II.

Soviet tank design stressed small target area, with an advanced ballistic shape turret, an design practice they have continued to this day.

What do you think happened to all that German armor lost in the West?. Ie, from June 6 - July 6 1944 the Germans claimed destruction of 537 Allied tanks, while reporting as total write offs 349 tank/AG Ie, 25 StuG, 197 PzKpfw IV, 112 PzKpfw V, 15 PzKpfw VI. By July 27 the Germans reported another 450 tank/AG total write offs includeing, 60 StuG, 224 PzKpfw IV, 131 PzKpfw V, 23 PzKpfw VI, etc.

After the break out from Falaise the German strength returns for August 21 showed:

2nd Pz.Div - 0
21st Pz.Div - No report
116th Pz.Div - 12
1st.SS.Pz.Div - No report
2nd.SS.Pz.Div - 15
9th.SS.Pz.Div - 25
10.SS.Pz.Div - 0
12.SS.Pz.Div - 10

This from a force on June 10 1944 of 1,891 tank/AG consiting of:

PzKpfw III - 39
PzKpfw IV - 758
PzKpfw V - 655
PzKpfw VI - 102
StuG - 158
BuetePz - 179.

What happened, how were these German engineering marvels that were so superior in aspects defeated, by such inferior Shermans?.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

That`s nice John. Why not the full story? The data below refer to "perfect", 90 degree strikes on armor. You know that... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1a. Firing was conducted on terrain permitting 1500 yards maximum range with zero angle of site. All guns and types of ammunition, suitable for anti-tank purposes, available to First U.S. Army were defeated on targets whose armour plate was slightly burned. Upon determination of critical ranges , all penetrations were proven against the armor plate of a German Mk V "Panther" Tank with armor undamaged and in excellent condition. All firing was conducted normal(2) to the target. No firing was conducted against the German Mk VI "Tiger" Tank as there were none available.

1c. The board assumed that the effect of hollow charge ammunition is not dependent on terminal velocity but the effect does vary with the angle at which the projectile strikes. Hits approaching 90º angle of impact give better penetration.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

what percentage is that to real life combats - there is always an angle.. Even from a moderate 45 degree side angle, you effectively face the T-34`s front slope in the form a Panther side - that is no-go for most of these guns you mentioned.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, as I asked in your 89mm question.
Ie, the Wa Pruef 1 report on the Panther's vulnerability uses 30º for its calculations, while the Soviet LF tests used 0º, 30º, and 60º .



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

The key to this statement is the subjectively defined meaning of "often". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if thats thats your definition, of it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Dyglikol based powder is in just about every way superior to Nitroglycerin based powder.. cheaper, safer, less wear on barrel, and doesn`t make huge flashes... try to live with that, John, it`s a fact.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not about what powder was superior, you implied German powder would not ignite or burn as easily as the Sherman exposed rounds did. You refuse to accept Panthers or Tiger II's burned on turret penetrations despite war diary entries etc.

It's interesting that in a report to Hitler from Guderian dated .28.06.44 on the Panzer forces, we find this excerpt under technichal details: However, the Panther burns astonishingly quickly. An British Report No.17, Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France 6th June and 31st August 1944, showed that of out of 22 Panthers examined 14 (63%) had burned out from AP hits.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
source? Listing of units, or any actualities?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do I need a source?, I already gave you one. Yet you havent provided one souirce to counter mine. Why am I always provideing you with data?. Start with Schneider's Tigers in Combat volumes 1 & 2.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Subject was PzIV vs. Sherman. I don`t see what Panther, Zitadelle, and a single case of a 45mm ATG has to do with that... T-34s were knocked out with 2cm AA guns during Barbarossa, so...?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so what? one cant expound & give examples now?.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>.

Great story John. And the Big Picture? Actions of, uhm, 3 or so Konigstigers holding a village in hungary early 1945 vs. a whole soviet tank brigade, knocking out some 40+ T-34s for NO losses? One attack wave butchered after the other... Or how about the combat record of Tiger II`s of the 503.? Knocking out ~250 ATGs amd 250 Soviet tanks for like - 10 destroyed Tiger IIs in combat..? This gives some hint what were Comrade Oskin and co.`s chances for survival when he/they met his next Konigstiger. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are you so negative to Allied achievements Ise?, why when someone posts something good an Allied soldier did, you feel the need to try and belittle it?. No one has stated the Tiger II was not effective etc. Would you prefer Nazi Germany had won the war?.

Big picture? so what did 509 accomplish militarily? so they destroyed 40 tanks? so what, their were 4000 T-34 etc, to replace them.

The big picture is strategic not tactical, and the big picture boiled down to the Germans had some small tactical success after Zitadelle, but they totaly failed strategicly. Nazi Germany and her satalite Nations were defeated, thats the big picture.

And drop me the date of that action by 503 so I can look it up in 503s war diary. As of 10.05.45 503 had a total of 2 Tiger II, both were demolished by crews the same day.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Thu April 08 2004 at 03:29 PM.]

Enofinu
04-07-2004, 04:07 PM
there arent many things where 50cal can make more damage than 13mm or other hvy machinegun.
well, engine is one and after penetrating armor plates the stuff behind them is second. but in wings or tail hit, there should not be almost any difference. both mg:s can penetrate wing and broke stuff inside it. there aint much stuff which can stop hvy mg bullet for penetrating.

WWMaxGunz
04-07-2004, 04:28 PM
Rate of fire even with a lesser but same class projectile can make a huge difference as more hits with more even spread.

Better ballistics, not just higher muzzle velocity but a balance of that with mass to hold that speed means easier to aim. A 10% heavier bullet at 10% slower I am sure will have the flatter long range trajectory, out past 200m, for the same inertia. The top %'s of speed gets lost pretty quick, the drag curve is not linear.

Those Russian aircraft MG's really have the effective power better. They also run through ammo quicker, one thing I didn't like when we ran VVS as WW's in early war planes except LaGG-3 which had the other balance in IL2 1.0, fast engine overheat. Higher ROF means when you miss, you miss with more shots!


Neal