All of your above points are well made.
You ask this question on most forums...you get blank stares...digitally that is....(:O)
I do think that unless there was a specific reason for the original range assignation by the designers...it is probably an error as Huib says.
This may lead to the ultimate conclusion that despite rumors to the contrary...those designers were human...
But I can't just sic the Huib on Jason and consider my day's work done...:whis:
Ahem...:soap:
Still...it is every bit as likely that they DID have a solid reason for the difference. For instance, if memory serves, the early Tiger II's were rushed out and had very poor vision systems that were remedied later with rain shields and cupolas.
I've always felt the reason Talonsoft gave almost all German tanks good credit for long range capability had to involve more than just those long guns. Not that they didn't have long range....but compared to some of the late war Russian monsters like the 122mm's and 152mm's...they still reach out and touch somebody like no other units in the game.
Yes, yes, OK, I realize the larger cross sectional base area of the bigger caliber degrades downrange performance due to inferior ballistics...but not THAT much...and I'll bet most of those were boat tailed or at least semi-boat tailed. Russian tanks must be getting penalized for poor optics. You can't tell me Russian T34-76mm can shoot 6 hexes...and the mighty Zieverboy only gets 7/8? Balllistically that doesn't make sense. Operationally it well can. But we're not jawing about Russian tanks...yet...lol...back on topic...
My thoughts on the general long range superiority of German tanks in the game was due to German optics being superior to just about any other country's optics at that time.
My thoughts, not my knowledge.
You could still make that argument for German optics, with Zeiss and Leica still leading the way in many designs.
As for the differences between different tanks/tank destroyers that have the same main guns...I think it's agreed that many of the units in game are actually representing different "mixes" of units as in the case of a Sherman Firefly platoon's 17 pounder getting about half or less the range of a platoon of Achilles...who also used the 17 pounder. The Firefly platoon in game represents the "mix" of 17 pounders of course along with a majority of 75mm vanilla Sherman main guns.
That isn't the case with German tank platoons.
Von Luck's point is also well made.
Tank Destroyers with similiar guns, like the Leopard for instance, had limited traverse and elevation adjustment ability...and make poor offensive weapons due to this. As a designer you can either charge them more to fire, or reduce the unit's effectiveness through range and damage reduction. Sometimes both?
BUT (yes I'm enjoying myself)...one must also assume a tank destroyer would have a MUCH more solid breech block assembly and some early war designs used cradle recoil management systems. Which basically means NO recoil system...just solid steel that can handle it and transmits the shock to the carriage itself. That is hard on the crew though, and as guns got bigger that ended. Cross eyed tank commanders don't shoot straight.
Most tanks used hydro or pneumatic (say sliding) recoil systems to keep the turret on the tracks. Tank destroyers...no turret...no problems...less dampening required...effectively higher velocity from the same round.
Slightly.
Not going to fisticuffs over that one....just enjoying myself...
Let's not even get in to muzzlebrakes.
Ammo you say?
Jumbo :bow:already did an excellent job of detailing this but let me amplify some what...
The Tiger I with it's KwK36 L/56 had three choices...but all three...
Pzgr. 39 (APCBC)
An Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped with explosive filler and tracer.
Pzgr. 40 (APCR)
An Armor Piercing Composite Rigid round with a sub-calibre tungsten core.
and the
Gr. 39 HL HEAT
A high explosive anti-tank round which was base fused. (hey Von Luck...they stole that one from your boys if I have it right...that was derivitave of the Scottish HEAT round eh?)
show inferior penetration values on the ballistics charts I have.
They penetrated 99mm, 138mm, and 90mm respectively at 1000 meters. Of course HEAT and HESH rounds don't have to penetrate to kill so they live in a different world.
The Tiger II's KwK 43 L71 had three options as well but I don't believe they ever used their 3rd option, the HEAT round.
The two armor piercing rounds they did use both show greater penetration then the L56.
The
PzGr. 39/43 APCBC-HE
Type: Armour Piercing Capped with Ballistic Cap - High Explosive
and the
PzGr. 40/43 APCR
Type: Armour-piercing, Composite Rigid construction
penetrated 165mm and 193 mm respectively at 1000 meters.
That is a large difference my friends.
I've already spouted enough numbers...but the short version is both the above Tiger II rounds had higher projectile velocity, weight, and armor penetration at all ranges.
Significantly.
In practice the Tiger II was every bit as accurate as the Tiger I.
In operation however, they were somewhat significantly less accurate.
Which leads me to...
The L71 was harder on the bore...and once the lands were shot out and the rifling gone...the gun's performance decreased rapidly...usually after 500 rounds or so.
BUT...the APCPB apparently suffered from NO restrictions and could be shot through a worn bore...telling me perhaps that was one of the first sabot style of rounds that required no rifling/spin? Ala, the new smoothbores from Rheinmetall?
Not sure on the reason why...but the round did not require a fresh bore to be effective like it's predecessor...so I'm guessing it was not making contact with the lands.
Then again...what do I know?
Regards,
Dan
ps: Love to chat more...but I have to go kill Von Luck for a bit....
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
