Weapon tests for Combat Mission

Also, I would love to see a test of the Panzer IV spotting times VS the Sherman.. I believe it would also have worse spotting. And that matchup - Panzer IV VS Sherman - is seen in so many scenarios. I personally feel the PZ IV is not worth its points cost.

But don't worry if you don't have time.
 
Bulletpoint said:
I wondered why you tested with +2 commanders by the way? Maybe to get the best possible result so that any difference would be down to the mechanics of the tank?

When I do tests, I prefer to always do them with regular +0 crew to get a feel for the average performance level.

In any case, I think the leader's rating only applies to his leadership functions - sharing intel, boosting the morale of the crew - rather than to spotting performance.
Click to expand...


I simply purchased units and both of them came out the same by chance, so I left that setting alone. I wasn't sure if the commander did or didn't affect his own crew's performance.
 
I am no expert on WW2, so I googled a bit to see if I could find out if the Panther's spotting was really inferior to the Sherman's. And it seems the game got it right. Apparently, the Sherman has more rotatable periscopes for the crewmembers, along with some other improvements that increase spotting:

www.quora.com

How did Sherman Tanks manage to frequently get the first shot in combat against Panther Tanks?

Answer (1 of 18): The honest answer is, they didn’t get to do that often! To put this in perspective allied losses of M4 shermans in the western theatre was 2715 British ones and 4295 to 4399 american M4s. The overall German kill ratio was 5 to 1 on the western front.this despite the fact the a...
www.quora.com www.quora.com
 
So, I started on a Pz IV vs Sherman test, both tanks buttoned , but I abandoned it after 20 tests. Believe it or not the Pz IV performed MUCH better than the Sherman, although both of them performed poorly, and I decided I didn't want to spend another hour on it to run 50 tests.

Pz IVH (late) Regular crew, +0 commander vs M4A3(75)W (mid) Regular crew, +0 commander. Both buttoned, 625 meters.

The Pz IV's best was 11 seconds for "Tank" and 18 seconds for positive ID. Pz IV's worst was 59 seconds for "Tank" and 1:07 for positive ID. Averages 28.5 seconds (Tank?) and 32.05 seconds (correct ID).

But the Sherman with its supposedly better periscopes was an eye-opener. Best was 12 seconds for both "Tank" and positive ID (it had positive ID the moment it spotted the Pz IV). But it failed to spot the Pz IV at all before being hit on 5 out of 20 tests. And it averaged 36.1 seconds (tank?) and 43 seconds (correct ID). And keep in mind, I could only use data for the Sherman in which it lived long enough to get positive ID.

Possibly a full run of 50 or 100 tests might even things out for the Sherman? But I was surprised how many times the Pz IV spotted first, and by how much.
 
jobu88 said:
Possibly a full run of 50 or 100 tests might even things out for the Sherman? But I was surprised how many times the Pz IV spotted first, and by how much.
Click to expand...

Thanks for helping to answer my question. Now I'm even more confused than before :)
 
Last edited:
I also think that spotting can be affected by some "visibility/conspicuousness" rating of the vehicle being spotted. Such as a profile height/silhouette. So if you want to compare how different tanks can spot, it might be a good idea to have a single standard spotting target (e.g. a sherman tank) for both Allies and Axis.
I'll have a go at this at some point - I automate tests with python so I can run them around the clock on a backup computer. Set up scenario, push button, collect results on the next day.
But right now I do my weapons tests - and the next thing I'm more interested in than spotting is how to use infantry antitank weapons :)
 
This is what I'd like to know about infantry AT - bazookas, panzerfausts, panzerschrecks, PIATs:
  • What is the chance of hitting a target (depending on target type, distance, unit experience)? At what distance can I engage a tank and reasonably hope to succeed? Should I prefer having fewer but more experienced AT units to having a bigger number of less experienced ones? Antitank soldiers drop like flies, at least mine do, so having numbers is important.
  • How effectively are AFVs protected - the effect of armor skirts or simply thick armor. Are some vehicles so well protected from certain angles that I shouldn't engage? King Tiger from the front? StuG or Pz IV from the sides? Are those sandbags and spare wheels on U.S. tanks good for anything or just eye candy?
  • Is there a difference between a trained antitank soldier vs a "regular squaddie" who picks up the launcher - like we found with gunners that there isn't? In that same battle with Ibex I had a company XO who swapped his Colt for an M9A1 launcher and I was wondering whether he'd be any good with it if the need arose.
 
I'm sure you can analyse this much better, but based on my own experience, this is what I expect:

Drifter Man said:
What is the chance of hitting a target (depending on target type, distance, unit experience)? At what distance can I engage a tank and reasonably hope to succeed?
Click to expand...

For Panzerschreck: 180m. For bazooka M9A1: 150m The other bazooka: 120m. All approximate values based on an unsuppressed regular +0 AT team. These ranges do not guarantee a hit, but the chance is so good that I would probably take the shot.

Drifter Man said:
Should I prefer having fewer but more experienced AT units to having a bigger number of less experienced ones?
Click to expand...

I usually play with the house rule that all troops be regular +0, so that removes my need to think about such things and frees more brainpower to think about tactics :) However the question is valid of course. I would say it's better with more less experienced teams. The main advantage of AT teams is that your opponent doesn't know where they are. The more incoming bazooka rounds he sees, the more careful he will be with his AFVs.

Drifter Man said:
How effectively are AFVs protected - the effect of armor skirts or simply thick armor. Are some vehicles so well protected from certain angles that I shouldn't engage? King Tiger from the front? StuG or Pz IV from the sides?
Click to expand...

Panthers shrug off bazookas on the front glacis but are vulnerable on the turret. Tiger IIs are pretty much invulnerable to bazookas from the front, but I think you can knock out the gun. Regular Tigers I don't know.. they appear so rarely in scenarios that I don't have enough experience with them VS bazookas. Armour skirts do protect against bazooka hits in this game, but it might depend on the exact angle of impact. I've seen several PZIV survive hits on the skirts.

Drifter Man said:
Are those sandbags and spare wheels on U.S. tanks good for anything or just eye candy?
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure they are just for show. But of course I'd love to be proved wrong. If skirts help against hollow charges, then a sandbag should, too. I also don't think spare track links on turrets offer any extra protection unfortunately.

Drifter Man said:
Is there a difference between a trained antitank soldier vs a "regular squaddie" who picks up the launcher - like we found with gunners that there isn't?
Click to expand...

Until you did that test of the gunners, I just assumed that of course gunners must be better gunners than average troops. But now I don't know. I could imagine that the same goes with AT gunners. Just a word on the screen with no mechanics behind the curtain.
 
Thanks @Bulletpoint - interesting points. It looks I underestimated Panzerschreck and Bazooka - until now I wouldn't have much confidence at ranges exceeding 100 m. I can extend my cover arcs next time I use them.

As for house rules - are there any sets of rules, written or not, that some/many/most players follow?
 
I did a bunch of tests a while back that found no HEAT round was able to penetrate the frontal armour of the King Tiger, including the giant 150mm HEAT rounds some SPGs carry. The only things I could get to penetrate the upper plate of the KT was another KT, and only after a dozen or so hits. The 155mm AP round found on the big American SPG punched through it without any issue, but making that work in game would be problematic to say the least.
17 pounder even with APDS couldn't go through the KTs upper plate, but could go through the front of the turret.

Smaller HEAT rounds such as Bazooka and PIAT couldn't frontally penetrate upper plate of a Panther hull either, unless getting lucky and hitting the MG port or drivers periscope.
 
Thanks to all the fellow posters that have continued this thread and providing excellent informations. I am very happy to see good discussion and test results posted here. Fantastic!
I am going to continue my test in the next days.
 
Drifter Man said:
As for house rules - are there any sets of rules, written or not, that some/many/most players follow?
Click to expand...

There's a lot of confusion about this. I recently tried to make a post to find out i there are some house rules, but people have different ideas.

The one thing most people agree on is:

Defender is not allowed to do pre-planned artillery, even with delay. In meeting engagements, both players count as being attackers.

Other rules people some people use are:

No aircraft

No shelling of attacker's setup zone

No direct fire into attacker's setup zone (unless fired on from there first)

(but these are difficult, because the defender might not know where the attacker's zone is...)


And a personal houserule I like:

All troops are to be regulars with neutral (+0) stats. I find it saves time during setup, avoids tedious (and unrealistic) min-maxing of key units, and makes troops act in a more realistic way.
 
Thanks @Bulletpoint - it looks like it's a matter of taste and specific agreement between the players for a given battle. The first rule sounds very reasonable and it's what I remember from CMx1 days (when preplanned artillery was even impossible in ME's if I recall).

Stafford said:
I did a bunch of tests a while back that found no HEAT round was able to penetrate the frontal armour of the King Tiger, including the giant 150mm HEAT rounds some SPGs carry. The only things I could get to penetrate the upper plate of the KT was another KT, and only after a dozen or so hits. The 155mm AP round found on the big American SPG punched through it without any issue, but making that work in game would be problematic to say the least.
17 pounder even with APDS couldn't go through the KTs upper plate, but could go through the front of the turret.

Smaller HEAT rounds such as Bazooka and PIAT couldn't frontally penetrate upper plate of a Panther hull either, unless getting lucky and hitting the MG port or drivers periscope.
Click to expand...

Good to know. The 155mm gun surprised me - I wouldn't expect it to penetrate, it's not exactly a high-velocity AT gun. But as you said, it hardly matters in practice.
 
Drifter Man said:
The 155mm gun surprised me - I wouldn't expect it to penetrate, it's not exactly a high-velocity AT gun. But as you said, it hardly matters in practice.
Click to expand...

Sherman 76mm shell: 5,84 kilos at 790 m/s

Long Tom 155mm shell: 45 kilos at 837 m/s

M12 Motor Carriage 155mm shell: 43 kilos at 735 m/s
 
Last edited:
I did a bit a googling on this. The M12 wasn't a Long Tom but an older M1917/M1918 gun based on French design (GPF). I couldn't find data for the AP shell, but Wikipedia says 43 kg shell at 735 m/s - HE, I presume, AP could be different. If I compare it to the 90mm gun M3 (something in the category that can be used against a King Tiger), that one would be 19.39 kg at 810 m/s (Wikipedia again). So in terms of kinetic energy at the muzzle (whether this is the right method to compare AT guns, I don't know, but I don't have a better one), it is 11.6 MJ versus 6.3 MJ. So your point checks out @Bulletpoint.

The ultimate test was, of course, carried out in CM against a dismounted King Tiger at around 300 m. Penetrated lower hull but did not penetrate upper hull or turret. I only ran two tests.
 
Drifter Man said:
I did a bit a googling on this. The M12 wasn't a Long Tom but an older M1917/M1918 gun based on French design (GPF). I couldn't find data for the AP shell, but Wikipedia says 43 kg shell at 735 m/s - HE, I presume, AP could be different. If I compare it to the 90mm gun M3 (something in the category that can be used against a King Tiger), that one would be 19.39 kg at 810 m/s (Wikipedia again). So in terms of kinetic energy at the muzzle (whether this is the right method to compare AT guns, I don't know, but I don't have a better one), it is 11.6 MJ versus 6.3 MJ. So your point checks out @Bulletpoint.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I must admit I thought the M12 was in fact the one called Long Tom.. but I see now they are different guns. Still, as you found, the shell is so heavy that even at a lower velocity, it packs a very big punch. So I'm not surprised it would go through a Tiger II.

Drifter Man said:
The ultimate test was, of course, carried out in CM against a dismounted King Tiger at around 300 m. Penetrated lower hull but did not penetrate upper hull or turret. I only ran two tests.
Click to expand...

This was the 90mm?
 
Yep it's no fun getting hit by a 155 mm, no matter what car you're riding!

The tests were with the M12 GMC.

Edit: I think it also matters what the area is over which the impact force is distributed... so a smaller, high-energy round is better than a big one.
 
I tested it out a couple times and the 90mm on the M36 could pen the turret of a Tiger 2 up to 700m with the HVAP round. It depends where it hits tho, he could only pen it on flat places, like the lower left side of the turret and the lower right. So its still not good for head on, my tactic against Tiger 2s are to strafe him with a P-47 to damage his optics and then get a couple shots on him with the M36, that's the cheapest way I can think of that can deal with a Tiger 2 in a conventional way in CM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom