Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Tyrannis on July 22, 2011, 03:09:44 PM
-
What is the armor thickness of the m4(76's) turret?
Yesterday, i was in a tiger trying to defend one of the bish vbases in an tiger, when i came across an m4 to my 12. i got 3 shots off at him, all 3 hitting the right side of his turret. but my shots seemed to have no effect.
After 2 shots to the front of my tiger, the m4 had nocked out my gun. I attempted to back up behind cover to make a break back to base, when his third shot somehow nocked out my engine, even tho it hit me in the front.
And now thanks to this crap experience, i doubt i will have enough perks to try the king tiger out in the MA for awhile.
So i guess the armor thickness on an m4's turret is strong enough to survive 3 hits from an 88m AP round? :bhead
-
What is the armor thickness of the m4(76's) turret?
hangar, clipboard, rightclick on tank, "vehicle armor" ;)
-
I hit an m4 76 3x in turret from less then 500yrd with a panther 2 bounce offs and a sprite then he shot me dead :( lame.
-
I hit an m4 76 3x in turret from less then 500yrd with a panther 2 bounce offs and a sprite then he shot me dead :( lame.
Some reason I'm interested to know why it seems M4's can kill Panthers all to easy beyond range of 1400. Lost three Panthers today at 1400 yards or more and still can't explain even from the films, all three were upper hull shots on flat ground.
-
Perhaps a bug in the coad for the American 76mm gun?
-
Some reason I'm interested to know why it seems M4's can kill Panthers all to easy beyond range of 1400. Lost three Panthers today at 1400 yards or more and still can't explain even from the films, all three were upper hull shots on flat ground.
Any chance you could post one or two of those incidents?
-
Any chance you could post one or two of those incidents?
I figured it out, Lower hull Shots beyond 1600 yards will result in a kill for an M4. So Panthers are useless from the front unless front lower hull is hidden.
Beyond 2k yards a sherman can't kill a Panther via front lower hull. What I found out is the upper hull and Turret are immune to an M4, however the Lower hull seems to take shots up to 2k without any problems killing a Panther.
Something seems weird about a round flying beyond 1700 yards, to penetrate a panthers Front Lower Hull especially on the angle it has?
Edited:
I ran the test with Hooter in the DA, an M476 at 1400 yards (upper hull, turret, then lower front hull)
Each time up to 2k the Panther died via Lower front hull, now turning 10 degrees to either side from a head on position, the panther did take a few rounds extra, but still died at 1700 yards.
-
Something seems weird about a round flying beyond 1700 yards, to penetrate a panthers Front Lower Hull especially on the angle it has?
While there is some significant drop at 1700 yards, the AoI (angle of incidence) of a high velocity 76mm AP round is still very small, for practical purposes you can still call it "flat".
In AH, the 76mm of the Sherman is stated as having a penetration of 111 mm at 1K and still 97mm at 2k. The Panther's lower hull armor thickness is only 50mm, so effective thickness after taking into account the slope is 87mm.
-
While there is some significant drop at 1700 yards, the AoI (angle of incidence) of a high velocity 76mm AP round is still very small, for practical purposes you can still call it "flat".
In AH, the 76mm of the Sherman is stated as having a penetration of 111 mm at 1K and still 97mm at 2k. The Panther's lower hull armor thickness is only 50mm, so effective thickness after taking into account the slope is 87mm.
I'm having a hard time finding evidence that M4's with 76 killed any panthers from the front during the war, do you have any info ?
-
I'd still like an explination on how an m4's turret could survive 3 88 mm rounds hits, Be able to nock a tigers turret out in only 2 hits to the front, and somehow disable my engine from the front as well.
:bhead
-
we now have data ...
In AH, the 76mm of the Sherman is stated as having a penetration of 111 mm at 1K and still 97mm at 2k. The Panther's lower hull armor thickness is only 50mm, so effective thickness after taking into account the slope is 87mm.
and testing ...
... Each time up to 2k the Panther died via Lower front hull, now turning 10 degrees to either side from a head on position, the panther did take a few rounds extra, but still died at 1700 yards.
it seems its modelled right :aok
-
we now have data ...
and testing ...
it seems its modelled right :aok
Not entirely sure about it yet.
From the excellent "Germany's Panther Tank. The quest for combat supremecy" by Thomas L. Jentz (Schiffer 1995):
(http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3069/panthersurvivability.jpg)
(http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3350/panthersurvivabilityii.jpg)
-
i dont know what to make an assessment on; but whats your opinion snailman
-
i dont know what to make an assessment on; but whats your opinion snailman
I don't want to jump to early conclusions, I'm just starting to form one.
But the discrepancy is astonishing. In game, the lower hull can easily be penetrated my the M1A1 76mm gun at ranges up to 2k. The numbers from the tests of the Waffenpruefamt in 1944, as cited by Jentz, say no pentration possible at any range (at 30 degrees).
While it is always a bit problematic to compare different tests, the is simply too fundamentally to be ignored.
In 1944 the Germans even reduced the lower hull armor thickness from 60mm to 50mm with the introduction of the G variant in order to increase armor at some other locations like rooftop or some parts of the side armor. Certainly they would not had done that to a very critical location if that would have been seen as taking a high risk.
:headscratch:
-
the book penetrations are at 30o so it still looks reasonable, the thickness at 30o is 100.46mm if ive got my trig right. the effective thickness will be even higher though.
impressive performance from the 6pdr though (only a 57mm gun!)
-
the book penetrations are at 30o so it still looks reasonable, the thickness at 30o is 100.46mm if ive got my trig right. the effective thickness will be even higher though.
Our M4(76) can penetrate 110mm at 1k and drops below 100mm just under 2k, which means it can penetrate the lower hull even at 30 degrees at those ranges (which is in turn in line with ingame tests).
But the Waffenpruefamt tests say: impossible at any range!
Penetration up to 2k vs no penetration even point blank... something doesn't add up.
I will look into some more sources, do some number crunching and may start a separate thread later today.
-
yeah but the tested 2k penetration is straight on, the book values are at 30o to the tank. what angle is the lower front hull (or what is the incident angle straight on)?
edit: I'd be interested to see some penetration/incident angle data for APCBC rounds, cant find any at the moment. (point being that the penetration isnt a direct relationship to cos(o) )
edit2: that wasnt very clear, what I mean is that calculating the armour thickness the projectile sees at the incident angle gives you the LOS thickness. because of deflection effects, the effective thickness is much higher. and the higher the incident angle, the greater the difference between the LOS thickness and the effective thickness.
-
yeah but the tested 2k penetration is straight on, the book values are at 30o to the tank. what angle is the lower front hull (or what is the incident angle straight on)?
edit: I'd be interested to see some penetration/incident angle data for APCBC rounds, cant find any at the moment. (point being that the penetration isnt a direct relationship to cos(o) )
edit2: that wasnt very clear, what I mean is that calculating the armour thickness the projectile sees at the incident angle gives you the LOS thickness. because of deflection effects, the effective thickness is much higher. and the higher the incident angle, the greater the difference between the LOS thickness and the effective thickness.
I have taken the effects of genuine slope as well as the additional side inclination of 30 degrees into account. :)
-
sure, but simply using LOS thickness wont give you useful numbers to compare to the book penetrations at such a high incident angle. my 3D trig is very rusty, have you got the incident angle from 30o?
-
I don't want to jump to early conclusions, I'm just starting to form one.
But the discrepancy is astonishing. In game, the lower hull can easily be penetrated my the M1A1 76mm gun at ranges up to 2k. The numbers from the tests of the Waffenpruefamt in 1944, as cited by Jentz, say no pentration possible at any range (at 30 degrees).
While it is always a bit problematic to compare different tests, the is simply too fundamentally to be ignored.
In 1944 the Germans even reduced the lower hull armor thickness from 60mm to 50mm with the introduction of the G variant in order to increase armor at some other locations like rooftop or some parts of the side armor. Certainly they would not had done that to a very critical location if that would have been seen as taking a high risk.
:headscratch:
Yeah the tests I did were with Hooter (in case most don't know were a pair of tank wreckers), I asked him to the DA to run the battery of tests because I had a feeling something was off on the Panther being destroyed a little to quick from the front lower hull.
Here's my biggest problem - I will post a photo to better show what I am wondering about -
(http://i849.photobucket.com/albums/ab56/Misconduc/panther_g.jpg)
The Front Lower hull seems a bit to low to have a round fly and Arc then penetrate, I would assume it would hit the upper hull the majority of the time, however I am in Awe that in a battery of tests done, Hooter was able to hit that Front Lower hull 1 outa 5 tries at varied ranges.
Granted I am a good shot also, but i don't feel it should be hit that often, Sure it's possible to hit it, however I think the numbers are out of wack.
-
sure, but simply using LOS thickness wont give you useful numbers to compare to the book penetrations at such a high incident angle. my 3D trig is very rusty, have you got the incident angle from 30o?
I'm not sure i understand what point you are trying to brign across... maybe I'm a bit slow today. Ok, not just today :D
The basic problem:
The real world data as presented indicates there is no penetration possible of the lower hull at any range at 30 degrees. But in game there is! If you duplicate the setup, the rounds are easily penetrating lower hull even at long ranges. I'm doing it right now.
-
The Front Lower hull seems a bit to low to have a round fly and Arc then penetrate,
The round doesn't arc as much as you seem to think. The AoI is at maybe 1-5 degrees only.
-
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae235/RTHolmes/AH%20stuff/incidence.jpg)
AB is armour thickness
AC is LOS thickness
AD is effective thickness
the angle between AB/AC is the incidence
the angle between AD/AC is the deflection
:)
-
I'm not sure i understand what point you are trying to brign across... maybe I'm a bit slow today. Ok, not just today :D
The basic problem:
The real world data as presented indicates there is no penetration possible of the lower hull at any range at 30 degrees. But in game there is! If you duplicate the setup, the rounds are easily penetrating lower hull even at long ranges. I'm doing it right now.
I'm glad someone has found some data on this, it concerns me that real world data says there isn't any penetration at 30 degrees, but you clearly can see a Panther be penetrated at 2k (assuming you hit the front lower hull).
-
but you clearly can see a Panther be penetrated at 2k (assuming you hit the front lower hull).
... at 30o?
-
(http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae235/RTHolmes/AH%20stuff/incidence.jpg)
AB is armour thickness
AC is LOS thickness
AD is effective thickness
the angle between AB/AC is the incidence
the angle between AD/AC is the deflection
:)
The point is? :headscratch:
-
... at 30o?
I just pentrated it at ~30 degrees at 1.3k with my 3rd hit.
-
I just pentrated it at ~30 degrees at 1.3k with my 3rd hit.
The Panther is broken!!!! Lusche has spoken!
-
The Panther is broken!!!! Lusche has spoken!
whoa, don't be so quick! Nothing final yet. ;)
One thing still to consider - what rounds had been used?
-
The point is? :headscratch:
comparing apples/oranges :)
ok 1.3k/30o doesnt sound right.
-
comparing apples/oranges :)
What the heck am I comparing? You really lost me now :uhoh
-
lol ok.
the ingame testing was at 0o and 10o.
the book testing was at 30o.
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 30o, we are finally comparing apples with apples. :)
-
lol ok.
the ingame testing was at 0o and 10o.
the book testing was at 30o.
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
-
one cannot directly compare these results. apples/oranges.
fixed :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
M476 V Tiger don't even get me started on that one. :bhead
-
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+