redoak84

Shermans

39 posts in this topic

So what is up with the M4 Sherman? Yesterday I had two instances where I dropped two 250kg bombs right next to a M4 and it just keep on going. While the M4 had a high velocity gun and better armor than the earlier Sherman variants, it was still a subpar tank in comparison many of the German tanks.

Personally, I would like to see vehicles and weapons be as historically accurate as possible and let people learn to use them appropriately. This nonsense of trying balance the game by deviating from the historical attributes is a huge turn off to me. I do not know if I will maintain my subscription for another campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our intent is to do an audit of both ballistics and armor. We've started the process of drawing our plans and getting a bit more organized on this. To be continued...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is bomb damage, not tank characteristics. It's also a problem that there's no cratering, at least of non-road surfaces.

Explosive devices kill at present with "fragment" particles. Armor is designed to keep out fragments, and is quite good at it.

Explosive devices need a second damage mechanism, only applicable to hard targets and buildings, to model the overpressure wave.

Time to call Scotsman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explosive devices need a second damage mechanism, only applicable to hard targets and buildings, to model the overpressure wave.

Not sure about Sherms, but I'm fairly certain I've seen wrecks/bomb attacks on WW2 tanks where the tank was simply flipped onto its side by the force of the explosion. Would be nice if that could happen to smaller/lighter tanks when they get hit by a large enough bomb.

It's also quite weird that we have to be this precise with our ordnance. The other day I put a 250 kg bomb onto an ET and the tank was just an idea away of sitting right inside my scorch-mark. So that's as near to a direct hit as you can get without actually scoring a direct hit. The ET wasn't bothered at all by any of this and I didn't get a kill. :)

I think I speak for everyone with similarly bad bombing-skills as my own when I say that we could really use something along the lines of the Ju-87 G (37mm ATG version). Not sure if tankers would agree on this one, though ... :D

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explosive devices need a second damage mechanism, only applicable to hard targets and buildings, to model the overpressure wave.

completely agreed - however as a die hard flyboy I will personally shout this down as loudly as I can until the ground pounders get LOTS of SPAA and or multi barrel towed AA.

it's just not fair to punish tankers even more until there are much better AA options.

I recall a german ordnance test focused on 500lb bombs using animals as test subjects. as i recall the tests showed that if a bomb landed within 15' of a tank every animal inside died. i want to say that was for german SC and british HC bombs. MC were a bit closer and GP closer still but you did NOT need a direct hit to knock out the crew.

still ... need moar AA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our intent is to do an audit of both ballistics and armor.

I am extremely concerned that you will pander to the History Channel version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explosive devices need a second damage mechanism, only applicable to hard targets and buildings, to model the overpressure wave.

+1

be better if they add it to the inf damage model to. i think we have one now but it only damages stamina and has a slight defining range, no damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ambushed a Sherman A2 driving past me from dead 6 o'clock and hit him square in the rear at 200m. What happened? He turns about to engage me, and his turret rotates toward me at the same time, so his 1 and 3 are still alive at least. Took two more almost 90 deg hits to take him out.

What should have happened? The AP shell should have gone through the front and killed everyone in the process.

durchschuss.jpg

The Sherman shown has been hit by a 88 which penertrated the front gone completely through and existed out the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
durchschuss.jpg

The Sherman shown has been hit by a 88 which penetrated the front gone completely through and existed out the back.

Straight through penetrations weren't the rule with APHE. The explosion of the shell easily could cause it to tumble, which certainly would make it less likely to continue penetrating.

And, a straight through penetration that would have to pass through the transmission--containing a considerable mass of hardened alloy steel gears--seems odd.

Not disagreeing with your game anecdote, just commenting on the caption to the photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP can be fickle and HEAT even more so...much depends on the interaction of the vehicle model with how the projectiles are modeled.

As for bombs, they are great frag producers and the average frag size can be enough to do in many a target...but...they too can be fickle...depending on ground condition etc.

Blast over pressure can also be iffy depending on the target. Not all AFV are equal in that regard. A 500 lb bomb with a short delay, or positioned underneath an AFV will likely destroy it, but may not kill the crew. I've seen M-48s hit buried bombs and suffer just that affect. Total destruction of the engine compartment, non-salvageable, but the crew survived.

Likewise a pershing taking direct hits from 152mm HE and surviving without casualties or ill effect.

Obviously light AFV are a different story. That's usually destruction of the target.

We can probably do better but it's all a matter of priorities. What's most important?

Edited by scotsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the picture if it's an APHE it will not go out the back end. If you get good fuse function it breaks up the round after primary penetration. Those irregularly shaped frags are large and designed to penetrate ammo and storage but they will be poor at subsequent RHA penetration.

Solid shot with or without cap can go through a target...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what is up with the M4 Sherman? Yesterday I had two instances where I dropped two 250kg bombs right next to a M4 and it just keep on going. While the M4 had a high velocity gun and better armor than the earlier Sherman variants, it was still a subpar tank in comparison many of the German tanks.

Shermans were made nearly immune to 250kg bombs a long time ago, it takes a direct hit literally on top of the turret or engine deck to destroy one. I doubt that there have been any shermans legitimately killed by them this campaign; you can get awarded a kill by double-tracking one with bombs, by the rare de-gunning or by suiciding in to the tank.

Stuarts and M10s can be destroyed if you drop a 250kg next to them but trying to bomb shermans is a waste of time, so ignore any HC that call for Luftwaffe to kill the shermans camping the AB.

Shermans are dominant in this game because there's almost no long range tank combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the picture if it's an APHE it will not go out the back end. If you get good fuse function it breaks up the round after primary penetration. Those irregularly shaped frags are large and designed to penetrate ammo and storage but they will be poor at subsequent RHA penetration.

That sounds just about right. IIRC, most German AP rounds were APHE/APCBC and not meant to "go straight through". They would penetrate, fuse and then blow up on the inside.

However: They did have other ammo, like the APCR (hardcore) PzGr 40. Pretty rare due to constant lack of Tungsten and there wouldn't have been a real need to use one of those rare shells on a Sherman, since the PzGr39 (APCBC) would've been enough to kill it. Especially in this case where the shot went in and out, which makes me think that this shot was taken at rather close range (by 88-standards). Perhaps a "freak" occurrence where the APHE didn't fuse properly?

Standard procedure would've been to engage the target with regular APCR/APHE - only if that didn't have the desired effect would the commander decide to switch to APCR - if he even had that ammo available on his tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello sascha, how are you?

That sounds just about right. IIRC, most German AP rounds were APHE/APCBC and not meant to "go straight through".

...

This is of course not entirely true. APHE is not meant to "go straight through" and it does have a small buster charge to shatter the shell post penetration. Compared to a standard AP round of the same calibre/gun the APHE is a less efficient penetrator due to its lower mass (the space for the buster charge etc) and is not as structurally resilient (the cavity for the buster charge etc). If it penetrates it will do better that a standard AP round post penetration.

APCBC is meant to "go straight through" as it is a development of the "household variety" of AP round. Standard AP rounds are usually blunt (have no aerodynamic streamlining) the blunt point (if it is possible to have a blunt point) is a better penetrator than a pointy one. The "C" part of the APCBC is a softer metal cap placed over the AP rounds blunt point to reduce the shatter effect caused by a high velocity impact. the remaining "BC" is a light Ballistic cap placed over the softer metal cap to improve the aerodynamics of the round. Better aerodynamics retaining more energy for better penetration and/or longer range.

In Summary here are the flavours of "household variety" Solid Shot Armour Piercing rounds.

AP = Armour Piercing solid shot. Aerodynamically poor, less resilience to shatter on impact.

APC = Armour Piercing solid shot with a softer metal penetration cap. Aerodynamically poor but improved shatter on impact resistance.

APCBC = Armour Piercing solid shot with a softer metal penetration cap and an aerodynamic (Ballistic) cap. Improved aerodynamics, better range and or penetration and improved shatter on impact resistance.

APHE = This round also includes a buster charge for improved post penetration effects.

Cheers

James10

Edited by james10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what is up with the M4 Sherman? Yesterday I had two instances where I dropped two 250kg bombs right next to a M4 and it just keep on going.

Sherman isn't broken. Bombs are.

At least it's the same for both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

500kg Bombs could penetrate up to 40mm of armor but doesn't count for spall and concussion which would kill with a sizable radius.

They also would tear the tracks apart, they could roll or flip the tank making impossible to use it, break the turrets and set the engine on fire.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ballistics audit has nothing to do with historical or History Channel accuracy. It has everything to do with making sure damage models are accurate and that things like the high explosive damage is working.

Currently, it's NOT. I don't think it ever really was working, but that's neither here nor there.

CRS is going to conduct an audit, and I'm tickled pink. This is a long time coming and they finally have the resources to start it.

As for Shermageddon... I don't think that was the OP's sentiment, or at least... his sentiment can be easily brushed aside in favor of the real culprit here, which affects both sides; the HE damage model.

It's focked.

No tank, axis or allied, should be able to withstand being BETWEEN black bomb marks.

No infantry should, either.

No plane should be able to take multiple HE rounds to any area of the plane and take NO damage, especially to the COCKpit.

It's got to be checked out and fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No tank, axis or allied, should be able to withstand being BETWEEN black bomb marks.

Suicide stukas/blenheims (lol) will have a field day with bombs that are historically accurate since there is no fear of death.

That's the only reason the bombs are they way they are. The small handful of guys who can consistently bomb tanks already cause enough butthurt as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suicide stukas/blenheims (lol) will have a field day with bombs that are historically accurate since there is no fear of death.

That's the only reason the bombs are they way they are. The small handful of guys who can consistently bomb tanks already cause enough butthurt as is.

which is why we need SPAA in a-historically large numbers WITH timewarps if need be before any bomb audits - preferably multi barrel AA too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
which is why we need SPAA in a-historically large numbers WITH timewarps if need be before any bomb audits - preferably multi barrel AA too.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few months back, someone posted stats about the actual historical number of bombs dropped per tank kill. I believe the number was really high. I remember thinking how much easier it must be to kill tanks in the game, given the number of tanks that get destroyed by bombs and the relatively few bombers. I would say, if anything, it's still much easier to destroy a tank in the game than it was in RL.

----------

Example, from historical sources:

Take for instance one of the most famous shooting galaries for Allied fighter bombers in France, the "Falaise Pocket". After the break out by Allied forces in Normandy in August 1944 a large number of German forces were trapped in an area known as the "Falaise Pocket". As German forces tried to exit this area they were attacked by allied fighter bombers. The British 2nd Tactical Airforce, and American 9th Airforce flew over 12,000 missions in this area. Together they claimed the destruction of 391 armored vehicles (tanks, self propelled guns, and armored cars) and 5,861 motor vehicles. The area was inspected by teams from the airforce after the battle. In fact aircraft had only destroyed 33 armored vehicles. And they had only destroyed 325 motor vehicles.

----------

12,000 missions and only 33 armored vehicles and 325 cars and trucks destroyed? That kind of makes the game seem easy, doesn't it?

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few months back, someone posted stats about the actual historical number of bombs dropped per tank kill. I believe the number was really high. I remember thinking how much easier it must be to kill tanks in the game, given the number of tanks that get destroyed by bombs and the relatively few bombers. I would say, if anything, it's still much easier to destroy a tank in the game than it was in RL.

----------

Example, from historical sources:

Take for instance one of the most famous shooting galaries for Allied fighter bombers in France, the "Falaise Pocket". After the break out by Allied forces in Normandy in August 1944 a large number of German forces were trapped in an area known as the "Falaise Pocket". As German forces tried to exit this area they were attacked by allied fighter bombers. The British 2nd Tactical Airforce, and American 9th Airforce flew over 12,000 missions in this area. Together they claimed the destruction of 391 armored vehicles (tanks, self propelled guns, and armored cars) and 5,861 motor vehicles. The area was inspected by teams from the airforce after the battle. In fact aircraft had only destroyed 33 armored vehicles. And they had only destroyed 325 motor vehicles.

----------

12,000 missions and only 33 armored vehicles and 325 cars and trucks destroyed? That kind of makes the game seem easy, doesn't it?

-Irish

your flawed logic can be applied to all weapons in this game. of all weapon systems artillery accounted for some 70% of casualties. a very small percentage of infantry even fired their weapon. how about every time you spawn an infantry 3 out of 4 times you're too scared to shoot your gun?

terrible argument is terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our intent is to do an audit of both ballistics and armor. We've started the process of drawing our plans and getting a bit more organized on this. To be continued...

Every time I see these comments for Xoom, I feel I need to duck to avoid the Nerf Stick heading my way. ;)

But yeah, fix HE already. Bombs are the suxxor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.