Can the M3 GMC get some love????

Can the M3 GMC get some love???? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

TheOriginalOverlord -> Can the M3 GMC get some love???? (5/22/2008 3:43:06 PM)
After a long break from the game I'm catching back up and getting all the updates and found a small issue (to me atleast!) Why is the M1897 75mm PEN so poor? The M3 GMC is almost useless against any AFV and the ACC is not that great either... I don't have all my references here in front of me but here goes a few of the reasons it should be better..... The M1897, M2, M3, M5, M6 and OQF 75mm guns all used the same ammo. The M1897 has the lowest PEN and ACC of all three. Just based on muzzle velocity alone the '97 should be equal to or greater than the M2 with it's stubby 31 cal bbl. (the '97 had a 36cal while the M3 was 40cal) Since the ammo was interchangeable and "most" of the M1897s were new production (or rebuilds) shouldn't the PEN and ACC be in the middle of the M2/M3 specifications??

Orzel Bialy -> RE: Can the M3 GMC get some love???? (5/22/2008 6:12:36 PM)
According to a book I have on ATG's and Arty...here's the specs of the guns outside of SPWAW for firing their respective AP rounds: 97' velocity 500m/s M2 Velocity 588m/s M3 Velocity 619m/s As such the penetration value of the guns in the games OOB's (58/86/102 respectively) do seem to be in order...even though the values seem to jump a "wee bit" too much between the M2 and M3 to me. (I guess the only question there is the gun being represented the L53 ATG or the tank mounted L40 versions of the M3?) The M5 and M7 guns were not versions of the 97. They were re-works of the 3in T9 Anti-Aircraft gun and the British OQF's were re-bored 6in guns.

KG Erwin -> RE: Can the M3 GMC get some love???? (5/22/2008 6:18:44 PM)
Jeremy, a couple of M3 GMCs are always in my USMC core force. They are very useful against most Japanese tanks, some of the fortifications, and definitely against dug-in infantry. Until the Shermans came along, it was the heaviest mobile gun the Marines had. They were employed in the Pacific from 1942 to early 1945, when they were replaced by the 105 mm M7 for the Okinawa invasion. Yeah, I love 'em.

TheOriginalOverlord -> RE: Can the M3 GMC get some love???? (5/22/2008 7:29:15 PM)
Orzel, Never claimed they were "versions" of...only that they used the "same" ammo. Using that as a baseline then the weapons should perform similarly based on muzzle velocity. Especially for "AP". I think your specs for muzzle velocity (for the M1897) may be WW1 data (dunno just a hunch) but the facts are the same ammo in a "barrel" the only thing affecting velocity is the length of the barrel. Velocity is what is determining the penetration of the AP shot. Longer barrel= higher vel= more PEN Shorter barrel= lower vel= less PEN Follow my line of reasoning?? KG, Yup M3s are great in N. Africa as well (when they have good penetration) :) Thanks for any comments!

Steve Petersen -> RE: Can the M3 GMC get some love???? (5/23/2008 3:17:13 AM)
The goal of every soldier: penetration!

FlashfyreSP -> RE: Can the M3 GMC get some love???? (5/23/2008 4:38:55 AM)
The weapon mounted on the 75mm GMC M3 (T12) and M3A1 was the M1897A 75mm field gun, modified from the French M1897 weapons the US received during WWI. There were no M2, M3, M4, etc. versions of this gun as field artillery; those were all variants built for specific mountings: the M2 was for the M3 Lee medium tank; the M3 was for the M4 Sherman; the M4 and M5 were modified for mounting in aircraft, most notably the B25; and the M6 model was made for the M24 Chafee light tank. All of these variants had different barrel/bore lengths: M1897 - Bore 101.87in M2 - Barrel 91.75in M3 - Barrel 118.38in M4 - n/a, not listed in my Hogg reference M5 - n/a, not listed in my Hogg reference M6 - Barrel 129.2in Additionally, the T12 was an extemporaneous design, and the mounting was not well-suited to the M3 Halftrack it was mounted to...this accounts for the lower FC and RgF ratings compared to other TDs. As for the in-game values, many of them have been left unchanged; fixing some would leave others out-of-whack. The whole weapon side of the game needs a good overhaul, but I don't know of many people who have the kind of free time it would require to revamp all the weapons.

Orzel Bialy -> RE: Can the M3 GMC get some love???? (5/23/2008 8:24:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Overlord Orzel, Never claimed they were "versions" of...only that they used the "same" ammo. Using that as a baseline then the weapons should perform similarly based on muzzle velocity. Especially for "AP". I think your specs for muzzle velocity (for the M1897) may be WW1 data (dunno just a hunch) but the facts are the same ammo in a "barrel" the only thing affecting velocity is the length of the barrel. Velocity is what is determining the penetration of the AP shot. Longer barrel= higher vel= more PEN Shorter barrel= lower vel= less PEN Follow my line of reasoning?? KG, Yup M3s are great in N. Africa as well (when they have good penetration) :) Thanks for any comments! OL, First of all I apologize in that I didn't mean to imply that you were claiming all the guns you stated as being from the 1897 family tree. I actually meant to state that the other guns should not be lumped together as they did not fire the same AP ammo as the 97' based guns. According to the sources I have on hand the 97' class guns fired the M72 AP and M61 APC shots while the others fired the M79 AP / M62 APC Shots. The latter were improved rounds that were designed to give those guns better penetration values against German armor. (even though these rounds still had quality issues from what I have read that lead to them shattering upon impact rather than penetrating the armor plate they struck...which, btw, is another factor outside of velocity that helps determine penetration albeit harder to portray via a game engine.) [;)] Anyway, in theory Ii agree that the 97' derived guns data should be a bit closer but still should not be put in the same ballpark as the 3in based guns which at 500 to 1000 meters could pierce far more mm's of armor with the rounds they utilized. Now I'm not looking to get into a brawl over any of this mind you...just pointing something out for reference. Besides, as Flash states not all of the values are 100% perfect due to years of changes...and therefore despite the best of efforts (especially the valiant efforts of the Enchanced team)some values will still be out of sync and would take quite a while to clean up completely. PS...As for the 1897 gun I found a US source that states the WW2 era 97's Muzzle Velocity at 575 M/S...so yes it was higher than the French original and closer to the M2 and M3.

TheOriginalOverlord -> RE: Can the M3 GMC get some love???? (5/23/2008 3:41:27 PM)
Orzel, No offense taken! quote: According to the sources I have on hand the 97' class guns fired the M72 AP and M61 APC shots while the others fired the M79 AP / M62 APC Shots. The M79 and M62 were for the 76mm guns the others were for the 75mm guns ('97/M2/M3/M6). I'll accept the facts the Fcon and RngF numbers are lower on the GMC due to the mount. My "only" beef was the lower PEN and ACC of the '97 when compared to other guns that fired the exact same ammo but with a shorter barrel. The PEN of AP is determined by the kinetic energy and that is determined by velocity. Hence with the ammo being constant and the only difference is barrel length then according to the data the M2 and '97s have a descrepancy in AP PEN. Follow my line of thought? I've lost access to my vast research library but I will try and find some more relevant info.... my main info came from Hunnicuts books on the Shermans and halftracks and IIRC it had the gun data in the back in the weapons tables.

m10bob -> RE: Can the M3 GMC get some love???? (5/27/2008 2:27:47 PM)
Good site: http://ww2armor.jexiste.fr/USArmor/Files-English/2-Vehicles/1-Halftracks/GMC.htm

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

9.703125