Armor thickness of a m4(76)'s turret?

[Lusche]

comparing apples/oranges

What the heck am I comparing? You really lost me now 

[RTHolmes]

lol ok.


the ingame testing was at 0^o and 10^o.

the book testing was at 30^o.

you cannot directly compare these results. apples/oranges.


to help compare them, you factored in the incident angle to provide the LOS thickness of the armour.

my point was that its still not a fair comparison as you should be looking at the effective thickness, which is considerably greater than the LOS, especially at high incident angles such as these. still apples/oranges.


now we have ingame testing at 30^o, we are finally comparing apples with apples.

[Lusche]

lol ok.


the ingame testing was at 0^o and 10^o.

the book testing was at 30^o.

you cannot directly compare these results. apples/oranges.

And I never did.

But to get back on track: I think the type of round plays an important role. The M4A3(76) is using the HVAP M93 APCR projectile, which has much better penetration than the more regular AP and APBC ammunition. I'd wager the Waffenpruefamt tests were made with the much more common types.  The M93 APCR was a very rare round with very limited availability for US tank crews.

See http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html

[RTHolmes]

one cannot directly compare these results. apples/oranges.

fixed

[MK-84]

Well wouldn't the next thing to do is test the same M4/76 against a different target now?
anyone know off the top of their head what has similar armor in a different location?  t34?

[Lusche]

After browsing through real world and AH data, as well as conducting a few tests offline in different tanks, at different ranges & angles I came to the conclusion that this is most probably not a topic for the "bug report" forum but for the wishlist.

While with T-34's we have loadouts that include only a few of the rare HVAP rounds, tanks like the M4, the Panzer IV and the Panther are fully equipped with a full loadout of the best, but also most rarest ammunition. In reality the PzGr 40 was very rare to be had in a Panzer 4 (the supply of tungsten basically ended after 43) and mostly issued to tank destroyers, if at all. In AH it is the only available, standard AP round. Same seems to be true for the M4 and the Panther.

Until we get a perk ords system that allows you to "buy" rare high power ammo, I'd suggets that we get loadouts for those tanks that do follow the T-34's patter, i.e. only a few APCR or APCBC rounds per option.

[bangsbox]

After browsing through real world and AH data, as well as conducting a few tests offline in different tanks, at different ranges & angles I came to the conclusion that this is most probably not a topic for the "bug report" forum but for the wishlist.

While with T-34's we have loadouts that include only a few of the rare HVAP rounds, tanks like the M4, the Panzer IV and the Panther are fully equipped with a full loadout of the best, but also most rarest ammunition. In reality the PzGr 40 was very rare to be had in a Panzer 4 (the supply of tungsten basically ended after 43) and mostly issued to tank destroyers, if at all. In AH it is the only available, standard AP round. Same seems to be true for the M4 and the Panther.

Until we get a perk ords system that allows you to "buy" rare high power ammo, I'd suggets that we get loadouts for those tanks that do follow the T-34's patter, i.e. only a few APCR or APCBC rounds per option.

Snailman has spoken! fix it, or lower panthers perks to around fireflys.... ALL HAIL SNAILMAN

[Butcher]

And I never did.

But to get back on track: I think the type of round plays an important role. The M4A3(76) is using the HVAP M93 APCR projectile, which has much better penetration than the more regular AP and APBC ammunition. I'd wager the Waffenpruefamt tests were made with the much more common types.  The M93 APCR was a very rare round with very limited availability for US tank crews.

See http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html

Historically speaking, I have done enough research over the last few days and concluded - the M4(76) and T34/85 have upgraded ammo. the M4 has the ammo automatically while the T-34 its really based on the ammo load. In reality as you said, the M4 had very limited M93 rounds available which doesn't really bother me to the fact that I know the Panthers front lower hull is weaker then it actually was based in real life.

It would be simple to fix the m4 depending on whether HTC decides to do this, but in all reality the M4(76) was not the Pershing. I would honestly give the M4(76) its correct ammo load out and remove its perk value. In reality the firefly was a perked Sherman. The German's made a standing order to fire on all fireflys for a reason, it was the only Sherman capable of facing a Tiger/Panther on equal terms in firepower, I have not (yet) read of an M4(76) being able to face either german tank on equal grounds from the front. From my stand point I believe the Panther has flaw enabling it to be destroyed in game easier then it was in real life.

Then again the possibilities are endless for a discussion on this, "what if this and what if that". From what I read so far, M4(76) had no chance to take on a Panther from the front at any range (this I would hopefully assume means ANY portion of the panther's hull).

My biggest concern which deeply troubles me, is if the HVAP M93 APCR was in such short supply during the war which had a very little impact over all, why the hell is it the ammo for our in game M4(76) and not the more historically used ammo?

[bangsbox]

the 55 degree lower front hull 50mm which was lowered from 60, and 66.96mm on the A and D models because it saved weight and it couldnt be hit other then a testing ground at short range. but here its hit square far to easy which is fine is it were not perked at 25

[lyric1]

M476 V Tiger don't even get me started on that one.

[Charge]

RTHolmes has a good point with LOS penetration issue and it is a real issue at 2k yards. I once shot at a Sherman from long range which was coming down a hill and considered that my projectile hit the front hull armour nearly at 0 deg angle but the hit only resulted in ricochet upwards so the angle obviously was not 0deg but I thought it a bit surprising that the shot failed to penetrate.

Without a proper cap a projectile is also prone to deflect away from surface when the angle is too high and this is an issue against face hardened steel. A projectile is more probable to dig in in cast armour (esp. APCBC) improving chances to proceed through armour.

Also remember that a round which penetrates does not necessarily destroy a tank unless it contains HE that explodes after the penetration, and if it is a APCR type projectile it needs to hit something vital to have effect and that rarely results in explosion (depending on ammunition storage arrangement of target tank). IRL the effect of a hit from APCR would probably be less spectacular.

I doubt such issues have been considered in modeling of tank warfare in AH so to make it simple in game "penetration" equals "kill" even if IRL it necessarily wouldn't and I can only guess how the trigonometry between the actual flight path vs. armour angle works in this game.

APCR
http://sus3041.web.infoseek.co.jp/contents/shell_db/50_pzgr40_apcr.htm

APCPC
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzergranate_39

Basics:
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=836

-C+