RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein



Message


fcam1387 -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/17/2008 5:47:36 AM)

Thanks, but I don't really understand what is with the repeating sequences of 0-4 in the rows. If I wanted to add say 4 Tiger IIs for line difficulty level in KG Peiper, how would I go about doing it?

Thanks




Andrew Williams -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/17/2008 6:08:31 AM)

From the AxsTeams TAB look up Tiger II SS = Class Number 113
Tiger II    Heavy Tank    SS Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B    113


In force pools each instance of "2" in column A is the "Line " difficulty. There is 0-4 for each day of the campaign.

Go to column AK which is the class 113 reference for Tiger II

You will see all the "2" references = 0

Change them to something higher than zero to get TigerII's

It would be best to make some panthers or MK'IV's no longer available so you don't have too much power

Panther is class 99 in column AG reduce the quantity in AH

PZIV is class 101 in column AI  reduce the quantity in AJ

you should now have some TigerII's and less Panthers and MkIV's





Mobius -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/17/2008 6:29:50 AM)

Reality

http://wargaming.info/armour07.htm




Andrew Williams -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/17/2008 7:42:09 AM)

Thank you

But it tells us nothing about 75mm ammunition nor about the formula involved in getting correct data for a penetration table in a game.

Interesting non the less.




simovitch -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/17/2008 1:02:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N
So any weapon with a kill rating of more than 52mm at a given range has a chance to penetrate the side armor of Panther D...

Yes, as long as that kill rating of 52mm is taken from a penetration table that is derived based on striking a vertical plate. If it was taken from a table based on striking a 30d plate, you should multiply each value in that weapon's kill table by cos(30).

I think (hope) we are in agreement here, the difference is we just don't bother converting all the weapons tables to striking a vertical plate (because they are usually available based on striking a 30d plate) we instead convert the target plates to the 30d relative thickness.[:)]

When the deflection algorythm is introduced into the equation, our front armor relative thickness for a Panther equates to around 140!




simovitch -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/17/2008 4:16:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N

Using the M3 75mm L40 as an example:
with 2 sources we have the following. First number is penetration of 30 degree armor plate, and second number is the equivalent total penetration

50m = 94/109
100m = 88/102
500m = 73/84
1000m = 59/68

Neil, I probably should have read your posts more closely - here's the difference (and both of our methods obtain the same result); Panther uses the unadjusted first number in our weapons tables, so we have to adjust our target armor thickness values. It's not a better way, it's just different (well, maybe a bit more complicated our way).

cheers,




final_drive -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/17/2008 11:11:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N

there were only 2 units outfitted with Tiger IIs in WWII. 

Neil,

I think you mean only 2 units outfitted with Tiger IIs participated in the Ardennes battles.

There was s.SS-Pz.Abt.501 that stood in for II./SS-Pz.Regt.1 and was part of KG Peiper.
There was s.Pz.Abt.506 which was committed piecemeal in the 5. Armee sector.

As a temporary fourth company, s.Pz.Abt.506 had attached the independant s.Pz.Kp.'Hummel', which was in turn equipped with repaired Tiger I. These were the only Tiger I that fought in the Ardennes. The destroyed Tiger I at Oberwampach, well known from pictures, came from this unit.

Finally there was also s.Pz.Abt.301(Fkl) equipped with Tiger I and SdKfz.301 demolition vehicles, and earmarked for the offensive. In the past, some authors assumed that it came into action (regularly mentioned with 9. Pz.Div.), but records indicate that was not the case, it did not detrain in the area. First recorded action after the start of the offensive was North of Aachen.

The Jagdtiger of 1./s.Pz.Jäg.Abt.654 boarded trains to the Ardennes, but ended up entangled in the chaos of rail movements and were eventually diverted to Operation Nordwind. Apparently only some support elements of the battalion detrained near the Ardennes, but there is that one scetch by a Belgian local of a knocked-out Jadgtiger near St-Vith that will always leave some doubt ...




Andrew Williams -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/18/2008 1:59:03 AM)

results of the changes as posted above.
Before
[image]http://www.closecombatwar.com/pics/A0819.jpg[/image]

After

[image]http://www.closecombatwar.com/pics/A0820.jpg[/image]


You see the addition of twp King Tigers and a reduction in Panthers and MkIV's




Peter Fisla -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/18/2008 2:51:10 AM)

Great stuff guys, looking forward to the path...I guess there weren't that many Tiger Is in AO but are the available for me in the campaign?




Neil N -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/18/2008 3:10:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: final_drive


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N

there were only 2 units outfitted with Tiger IIs in WWII. 

Neil,

I think you mean only 2 units outfitted with Tiger IIs participated in the Ardennes battles.



Yeah, that's what I meant to say.




final_drive -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/18/2008 10:26:27 PM)

Small trifles, but while we're at it:

the screenshots above show mainly Panzer IV H in the Forcepools, but by the time of the Ardennes Offensive the J type was by far the more common variant of the Panzerkampfwagen IV, no longer the H type. Production of Ausf. H had ended by July '44, while Ausf. J production already began in March '44. Units refitting after the Normandy campaign would have received J-types; any remaining H-types would have been rare survivors of the retreat across France. More so, most photographs of J's in the Ardennes show the later production characteristics of that type: two vertical exhaust pipes, late-type idler wheel, three return rollers and most apparent, the 'Thoma' mesh screen side skirts.

But anyway, the technical differences between H and J (mainly the removal of the auxiliary motor and electrical turret traverse mechanism, for extra fuel space) wouldn't have had that much influence in the tactical outcome of battle (certainly not in the scale of CC).




Platoon_Michael -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/19/2008 1:31:25 AM)

Am I the only one who hates the panzerschrecks and the Panzerfaust 60's?
They miss from 10m away and not just once either.

I've seen gernades thrown further than these.




Neil N -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/19/2008 1:37:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Platoon_Michael

Am I the only one who hates the panzerschrecks and the Panzerfaust 60's?
They miss from 10m away and not just once either.

I've seen gernades thrown further than these.


Some people say they are too lethal, I for one am in your boat...my zooks and schrecks all have CHS syndrome. I had to zook teams fire all of there rounds (10 total) from around 75m, and only 1 rocket actually hit the tank...the rest exploded on the ground around the tank. I'm looking at the data, and base accuracy is set at 85%

Now the schreck, I found some information in my research that said Hitler almost cancelled production because the accuracy of the weapon was not very good. He was observing a weapons training, and the schreck team only put 3 rockets out of 12 on a stationary target from 100m.




Mobius -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/19/2008 4:28:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N
Now the schreck, I found some information in my research that said Hitler almost cancelled production because the accuracy of the weapon was not very good. He was observing a weapons training, and the schreck team only put 3 rockets out of 12 on a stationary target from 100m.

Early schrecks had problems. Without the sheild they would burn the firer. But they later got it right. The WII Bazooka, not so much.

quote:


German bazooka:

Firing at a Mark V tank from ranges of eighty to two hundred yards both side and front armor were penetrated each time the tank was hit. Approximately twelve rounds were fired. In each case where the target was missed, the projectile detonated upon hitting the ground.

U.S. Bazooka:

Firing at the same target at a range of eighty yards with the U.S. bazooka, out of ten hits on the side armor, only three penetrations were obtained. At two hundred yards no penetrations were scored. In cases where the target was missed, the projectile generally did not detonate upon hitting the ground. Up to ranges of two hundred yards, the German weapons was more accurate, possessing a flatter trajectory than ours. Tests indicate the German bazooka is far superior to ours."

-Lt. Col. L. W. Correll, Commanding 17th Armored Engineer Battalion, 1945

General James Gavin of the 82nd Airborne was perhaps the US army's most vociferous critic of the bazooka. (Read his book "On to Berlin".) He witnessed bazooka rounds "bounce off" the armour of Tigers and Panzer IVs "from as close as 10 yards" at Biazza Ridge in Sicily in 1943, and he was extremely bitter about being mislead into believing that the bazooka was capable of easily destroying any German tank, as the manual claimed. He was even more angered to find that one member of the bazooka's development team had resigned in protest because it was well known that the weapon could not destroy the heavier German tanks that were coming out in 1943. He caustically said that his men never received an effective man portable anti-tank weapon until they captured stocks of German Panzerfausts in late 1944.

The later models of 2.36 inch bazookas (like the M1A1, M6A1, M9, M9A1) improved in range and accuracy-- the late models could hit large stationary point targets (like a tank) out to 300 yards and hit area targets at 7-900 yards (depending on the launcher's model and ammunition used), but even in the Korean War the warhead's armour penetration problem had not been solved.

For example, on the road to Osan-ni in South Korea on July 5, 1950, a second lieutenant of the 34th Infantry Regiment, Ollie D. Connor, fired 22 rounds from his 2.36 inch bazooka at the rear target facing of several T34/85s at 15 yards range. He failed to knock out even one tank.





Andrew Williams -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/19/2008 7:30:18 AM)

Again interesting but the information tells us nothing.

With data like "each time the tank was hit"  doesn't tell us much about accuracy... was it hit once or many times?  What percentage were hits?

It doesn't tell us.

"out of ten hits on the side armor, only three penetrations were obtained. At two hundred yards no penetrations were scored.

It doesn't tell us how many shots were taken 10 or 1000????

Why didn't it penetrate at 200 yds?

Did it even hit at 200yds?

"For example, on the road to Osan-ni in South Korea on July 5, 1950, a second lieutenant of the 34th Infantry Regiment, Ollie D. Connor, fired 22 rounds from his 2.36 inch bazooka at the rear target facing of several T34/85s at 15 yards range. He failed to knock out even one tank.

It doesn't say if he even managed to hit one tank... so is it accuracy or is it a penetration problem.



Please be careful when posting information ... it must be meaningful and pertinent.




Platoon_Michael -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/19/2008 10:48:01 AM)

Yea I had 6 shots at a tank and like you said only one hit.The command team has one shot and it missed as well.These were teams in close range of each other with good moral too.Not just paniced teams.
If mortor crews are going to be as acurate as they are now I think the zooks should be better maybe not from 100m but from 10m or less?Yes
You say 85% that sounds great but why it isnt happening is beyound me.
I'm not complaining about either the mortors or the zooks but it does feel odd from a playing perspective.
Whats even worse is the AI zook teams are firing their zooks while under heavy fire and doing some damage with them.

On the tank armor conversation I just lost 3 Panthers on one map.In two cases my Panther fired first but the Shermans took both of them out with one shot.
The third was lost after 2 shots.

Edit:
If there was a wish list for the next patch I would wish for being able to see elevation on the zoomed out map.




Mobius -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/19/2008 2:49:23 PM)

Andrew, the quotes give an overall effectiveness comparison of the bazooka and Panzerschreck. Neil N made a reference to a test of 3 hits in 12 for an early schrek witnessed by Hitler. So I added another anecdotal view.

If you want some real data here is a good page.
http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm

(BTW, like all good data found on the web don’t forget to get a hard copy in case some day it goes away.)




nietsche -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/25/2008 10:29:59 AM)

You get a BIG difference in effectiveness between brown and green 'schreck teams. The experienced ones with high morale can hit a tank from the ground. The seen battle with fair morale cant hit from the ground but do ok from thick bushes, rubble and buildings. Shooting from tall buildings with a clear line of fire produces consistent hits and theVeteran fanatics are exceptionally dangerous.




TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/25/2008 4:12:28 PM)

I find it amazing that the U.S. didn't improve upon the Bazooka during the war. How many improvements were made to the Sherman tank during the war? Dozens, and it had to cost a good bit of money and research to develop these things. Why couldn't or why didn't the U.S. take the time and money, which IMO would have been very little compared to other weapons, to improve the accuracy and penetration power or the bazooka? How hard could it be to increase the diameter of a metal tube, develop a larger and better shape charge round and then deploy it in the field?

The US spent money developing recoiless guns yet the bazooka remained in it's old ineffective version even up to the Korean war. Baffling, when you think about it.




Neil N -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/25/2008 5:46:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

I find it amazing that the U.S. didn't improve upon the Bazooka during the war. How many improvements were made to the Sherman tank during the war?


Yes, very interesting. About the only improvements they made were to the rocket projectiles, and then only a slight improvement. The M6 rocket that was deployed could penetrate 100mm. By late 1944, the M6A3 rocket was in use and could penetrate 125mm.

If you read "War As I Knew It"...which is for the most part Patton's wartime diaries and letters published by his wife after he died, he suggests that the bazooka be used at ranges of less than 50m.




Andrew Williams -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/25/2008 7:07:20 PM)

Because the US has always been on the offensive.

Zooks , schrecks, fausts etc are brilliant defensive weapons, that's why they were so impressive in German hands.

The US spent all of WWII going forward... you can't chase a tank with a bazooka.




nietsche -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/26/2008 2:14:54 AM)

... but I DO ... [:(]




Senior Drill -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/26/2008 2:30:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40

I find it amazing that the U.S. didn't improve upon the Bazooka during the war. How many improvements were made to the Sherman tank during the war? Dozens, and it had to cost a good bit of money and research to develop these things. Why couldn't or why didn't the U.S. take the time and money, which IMO would have been very little compared to other weapons, to improve the accuracy and penetration power or the bazooka? How hard could it be to increase the diameter of a metal tube, develop a larger and better shape charge round and then deploy it in the field?

The US spent money developing recoiless guns yet the bazooka remained in it's old ineffective version even up to the Korean war. Baffling, when you think about it.



The M1 Bazooka was improved several times. Through the MiA1 to the M9. But it remained a 60mm rocket, even through it's own upgrades, while the Germans improve on it to the 88mm Panzershreck. You might also ask why the Americans stuck with the the M4 Sherman when they had designs for the M6 tank in 1941. The economic answer was mass production. While inferior to German Armor and German anti-tank infantry weapons by 1944, it was more economical in terms of production and distribution to stick with the inferior designs in order to overwhelm the enemy with mass. At the human cost, of course.






GoodGuy -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/26/2008 3:50:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N

Now the schreck, I found some information in my research that said Hitler almost cancelled production because the accuracy of the weapon was not very good. He was observing a weapons training, and the schreck team only put 3 rockets out of 12 on a stationary target from 100m.


Question is, which version had been tested during that training?
According to what I've read so far, the first version of the Panzerschreck used a 88mm RP-warhead (R.Pz.B.Granate 4332) which could penetrate 60mm armor at 60 degrees. After 2 meters, the grenade traveled with a speed of 105 meters per second.

The second version featured the new protection shield for the gunner and fired the new RPzBGranate [grenade] 4992, which had a range of 180 meters.
The "Waffenamt" (the Wehrmacht's ordnance department) and the troops in the field rejected more than 13% of the Panzerschreck's 4992 grenades, most likely due to quality inconsistency. This could be the reason for the bad results during the training exercises, as the Germans faced various problems during production of the 4992 (design? material quality?).

The Belgian "Blindicide" and the Swiss "Raketenrohr 58/80" were post-war derivates of the Panzerschreck ...

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust3.htm#RPzB54

An instructor (Swiss Army) stated the following:

"Our regulation state a maximum range of 300 meters, but in NCO school our instructor told us to reduce it to 250 meters max for static targets and 200 for moving targets. (...) A 400m range is right on for engagement of non-moving large targets, such as buildings or pillboxes, against which AT weapons are effective. A 1000m range is reachable only through the use of a parabolic trajectory, and I imagine that more than one round was fired. (...) Parabolic-trajectory firing of the RR80 was not cited in the manual for fighting enemy infantry emplacements (I suspect the tactic went against Wehrmacht doctrine as well and was used by soldiers as an ad hoc alternative to mortar fire) but it was allowed for avalanche detachment. A sight attachment existed which allowed the gunner to properly aim the weapon this way. The engagement drill procedure were still valid with the RR80 10 years ago."

The Wehrmacht ordered additional special targeting devices for the Schrecks as late as February 1945, in order to be able to fire the Schreck from consealed positions/cover (parabolic-trajectory fire) - most likely an early version of the "sight attachment" described by the instructor, but even without this targeting aid, a crack AT soldier should have been able to hit a MOVING target beyond the Waffenamt's suggested max range of 180 meters.

I'd say the Panzerschreck excelled regarding max range (not necessarily accuracy above 200 meters, due to quality inconsistence) and could still penetrate light/medium tanks above the official max range, unlike the zookas. Still, it lacked punch as it could only penetrate armor up to 60 mm. The German soldiers used to overestimate the Schreck, as its impressive look suggested it had kick-ass firepower.

The Panzerfaust was probably the most effective AT weapon (right after AT guns) for the infantry, as the Panzerfaust100m could penetrate up to 200 mm, it had a range of 100 meters. At short ranges, it was pretty much a "fire and forget" - weapon [;)], as even Hitlerjugend kids (age: 14 - 16) scored various tank kills in Berlin, in close combat (30-40 meters), pretty much instant kills.
The Panzerfaust was harder to handle at medium ranges (above 70 or 80 meters), as the gunner had to use a parabolic "curve" at these relatively low ranges - already, where a Schreck gunner had to use this method only at very long ranges, as described by the instructor quoted above (I guess above 400 meters, although he suggests at ranges around 1000 meters).

I can't do the math for you here, but I'd say the current stats in the game don't reflect the Panzerfaust's deadliness within a range of let's say 30-80 meters, the Panzerschreck's range in the game is ridiculously low, and the Bazookas are still too effective in terms of penetration (that is without me knowing their exact historical penetration values, but i doubt they could knock out a Panther tank easily - which happens sometimes in the game), let alone a KingTiger tank. There are so many reports that Bazookas even bounced off StuG III armors, with the particular German units either retreating or opening fire.

There is a "funny" vet story about a group of GIs stumbling over a StuG III in heavy fog in the Ardennes, they sprint back to their jeep, get the zooka rounds, totally nervous, one guy even drops one round.... lol, then they move back towards the StuG III and fire around 3 rounds at the side, where 2 rounds hit, causing light damage/"scratches" on the plate, 1 round bounces off. The StuG III just pulls back full speed and gets away, without a vital scratch. [:D]




TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/26/2008 4:09:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill

The M1 Bazooka was improved several times. Through the MiA1 to the M9. But it remained a 60mm rocket, even through it's own upgrades, while the Germans improve on it to the 88mm Panzershreck. You might also ask why the Americans stuck with the the M4 Sherman when they had designs for the M6 tank in 1941. The economic answer was mass production. While inferior to German Armor and German anti-tank infantry weapons by 1944, it was more economical in terms of production and distribution to stick with the inferior designs in order to overwhelm the enemy with mass. At the human cost, of course.


Yes, I knew the reason behind sticking with the Sherman, but making a larger and better version of the Bazooka would have been so cheap, relatively speaking. And mass production couldn't have been expensive or long. It's a hollow metal tube with an electrical ignition how hard or complex could that have been?




GoodGuy -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/26/2008 4:25:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: final_drive

[]... but by the time of the Ardennes Offensive the J type was by far the more common variant of the Panzerkampfwagen IV....[].

Yep, although the J type was pretty common in the Italian theater, afaik.


quote:

Production of Ausf. H had ended by July '44, while Ausf. J production already began in March '44.

According to what I've read so far, production of Ausführung H (last serial numbers: 86393 + 89540) ended in February 1944, production of Ausführung J (first serial numbers: 86394 + 89541) started in February 1944.
Unless you were suggesting that Krupp had parallel production lines and problems with introducing the technical changes you mentioned, I'd prefer to think that the production of version H had been stopped in Febr. in favor of introducing the new J type.




Mobius -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/26/2008 4:53:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill
The M1 Bazooka was improved several times. Through the MiA1 to the M9. But it remained a 60mm rocket, even through it's own upgrades, while the Germans improve on it to the 88mm Panzershreck. You might also ask why the Americans stuck with the the M4 Sherman when they had designs for the M6 tank in 1941. The economic answer was mass production. While inferior to German Armor and German anti-tank infantry weapons by 1944, it was more economical in terms of production and distribution to stick with the inferior designs in order to overwhelm the enemy with mass. At the human cost, of course.

Yes, indeed. The M1 had a warhead with a steel liner in the shaped charge. The later versions had a copper liners. They also improved the fusing with each version.




Neil N -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/26/2008 5:03:17 AM)

Good stuff GoodGuy,

The information was there regarding maximum theoretical range up to 1000m for the panzerschreck...also that it had simple sights with notches for 100m, 150m, 200m...and that the 4992 rocket had a greater range than the 4322...and that there were 'production' issues with the 4992.
The ranges were set based on information obtained from a german army report that suggested panzerscheck teams limit the range of engagement to between 120m and 180m depending on the aspect to target and another that suggested a maximum range of 250m for static targets and 200m for moving targets.
Fear not, there has been heavy scrutinization of weapons and vehicle data that will be reflected in the next patch.




GoodGuy -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/26/2008 5:50:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N

The ranges were set based on information obtained from a german army report that suggested panzerscheck teams limit the range of engagement to between 120m and 180m depending on the aspect to target and another that suggested a maximum range of 250m for static targets and 200m for moving targets

What Army report?

Anyway, the quote on the geocities page (the guy maintaining the site might be from Lichtenstein - between Austria and Germany) refers to a statement from a Swiss Army instructor - using a post-war derivate of the Panzerschreck (which was fairly identical), so I'd say this instructor's evaluation 250m/200m sounds reasonable, and it's based on hands-on experience, too.

" but in NCO school our instructor told us to reduce it to 250 meters max for static targets and 200 for moving targets. (...) A 400m range is right on for engagement of non-moving large targets, such as buildings or pillboxes, against which AT weapons are effective."

This sounds realistic.

Just for the record, I do appreciate your commitment. Ppl like the game, and I think everyone here just tries to make this classic even better. [:)]




Derouin -> RE: Armor / Next Patch ?? (11/26/2008 3:28:23 PM)

quote:

For example, on the road to Osan-ni in South Korea on July 5, 1950, a second lieutenant of the 34th Infantry Regiment, Ollie D. Connor, fired 22 rounds from his 2.36 inch bazooka at the rear target facing of several T34/85s at 15 yards range. He failed to knock out even one tank. For example, on the road to Osan-ni in South Korea on July 5, 1950, a second lieutenant of the 34th Infantry Regiment, Ollie D. Connor, fired 22 rounds from his 2.36 inch bazooka at the rear target facing of several T34/85s at 15 yards range. He failed to knock out even one tank.


What do you suppose that Louie was thinking by his 16th bazooka round?
I bet he was scared $%#@ less rounds 1-8. By round 16 I'm sure he was giggling.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625