Maus

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Maus

#1

Post by Destroyer500 » 16 Oct 2018, 11:37

Hello guys !
Ive been playing war thunder for a lot of time now and i have to tell you that the maus gun does not have the actual penetration it was supposed to have.Just look at the picture below and youll understand.I got to a forum in war thunder where we are trying to get the developers to change the vehicles gun.We are at the same time trying to change many things about it,like the fact that it has an x3 zoom scope while it had an x10,the fact that its smoke launcer is 360 rottable but in game only fires backwards,the fact that in real life the maus had a rangefinder but in game it doesnt,the fact the turret cheecks are 220mm rolled homogenous in game but not 240 wotan hart n/a,and finaly the fact that apds rounds where being tested but gaijin doesnt give a shit(the company owning the game).I just wanted to give you an overal view about how it is implemented in the game,but that took me of topic.Anyways i would like you guys to help me find 2 documents that prove that the guns penetration in game is higher.They said that sources from the Dattenblater book and the Michael frontlichs buch der uberschweres are not valid for them.If you are willing to help fix the other problems about this big guy then go all the way and do so :D Lets give the 12.8 cm its glorry again
Attachments
maus.png.68772e8aa62c30192ec400f59cfdc42f.png

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 21:45
Location: Glendale, CA
Contact:

Re: Maus

#2

Post by Mobius » 16 Oct 2018, 16:30

The game doesn't seem to list the sights which in the case of the Maus may have been the W.Z.F. 2/7. This on paper should be a good sight. Though some information is lacking. I don't know if the zoom mag was 10x. The WZF 1/1 was but the WZF 2/2 was not.
As for the shell penetration:
The penetration number seems to be pretty good for the JagdTiger. It is almost exactly what the 920m/s firing table shows at 0 degrees. At 30° seems a bit below the firing table data.
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=220123&hilit=pak+80
There is one set of data that shows a MV of 950 m/s and that round might be used in the Maus. As this game has a lot of speculation equipment.
Last edited by Mobius on 16 Oct 2018, 18:04, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: Maus

#3

Post by Destroyer500 » 16 Oct 2018, 17:39

Well i know all that.In the begining the muzle velocity of the gun was 850m/s in game.Then they said oh it was 950m/s but lets not change the penetration values.They used the stast the infantry gun varriant had.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 21:45
Location: Glendale, CA
Contact:

Re: Maus

#4

Post by Mobius » 16 Oct 2018, 18:14

Those certainly are not the numbers for the 860 m/s gun. So they were wrong at that time.

BTW, where did you find that the WZF 2/7 sight had a 10x zoom? I haven't seen that anywhere.

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14028
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: Maus

#5

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 16 Oct 2018, 18:27

I would also argue that, since it's a game, having historically incorrect stats is a pretty standard way of maintaining balance.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Maus

#6

Post by critical mass » 16 Oct 2018, 19:17

acc. to:

download/file.php?id=409426&mode=view

penetration (5/5 successed in a row) of 12.8cm Pzgr 43 with i.V.=920m/s at 30°:
1000m:
202mm RHA
at 2000m:
178mm RHA

identic penetration data -but with more ranges are given in Anl. zu o46/44 g.K.v. 26.6.1944. It recorded for 920m/s muzzle velocity (12.8cm L/55):
reliable penetration with Pzgr43 (originally, the table states Pzgr39 for all guns but this is a typo for the 128mm as no such projectile designation was present) at 60° (30° from perpendicular to plate):
228mm RHA at 100m,
215mm RHA at 500m,
202mm RHA at 1000m,
190mm RHA at 1500m,
178mm RHA at 2000m,
166mm RHA at 2500m,
155mm RHA at 3000m

50% probability penetration figures would be somehow higher, particulerely if the projectile is allowed to break up (the uncapped 26.3kg Pzgr penetrated 201.7mm RHA at 45° (!) in broken condition at 900m/s, the Pzgr.43 penetrated 150mm @45° and 885m/s intact). Notice this is against normal hard but ductile RHA (80-90kg/mm^2 tensile strength). Against HHA, penetration would be increased considerably at <50° because of scaling effects in relation to intact projectile but plate shear failure mode of penetration.
Penetration against 0° can be estimated -with care- from table III, p.73 in BIOS final report 1343 Item No. 2 "STEEL AP AND THEORY OF PENETRATION" Sept. 1945 (0° penetration = 1.23 x 30° penetration). This document contains also some firign trial data from the Hillersleben minutes of this projectile.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 21:45
Location: Glendale, CA
Contact:

Re: Maus

#7

Post by Mobius » 16 Oct 2018, 21:52

That falls in closely with this:
128mmpzgrts.jpg
That game probably uses the 50/50 criteria but never normalizes the data to that level.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: Maus

#8

Post by Destroyer500 » 17 Oct 2018, 00:27

Thanks a lot guys.If the 1.23 multiplier is correct then this gun could pen at 100metters 280mm of 0° angled rolled homogenous armor.Ill check also the documents you sent me and see how i can forward them to the games devs.
Apart from the pzgr43 shell,i read rummors of an experimental apds shell for the 12.8 cm gun which was named pzgr-ts being tested.I read it here https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/l ... -ts.46597/ but also read about it in the games forum.Any opinions ?

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 12 Jan 2005, 21:45
Location: Glendale, CA
Contact:

Re: Maus

#9

Post by Mobius » 17 Oct 2018, 02:04

Destroyer500 wrote:
17 Oct 2018, 00:27
Thanks a lot guys.If the 1.23 multiplier is correct then this gun could pen at 100metters 280mm of 0° angled rolled homogenous armor.Ill check also the documents you sent me and see how i can forward them to the games devs.
Apart from the pzgr43 shell,i read rummors of an experimental apds shell for the 12.8 cm gun which was named pzgr-ts being tested.I read it here https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/l ... -ts.46597/ but also read about it in the games forum.Any opinions ?
Actually, it is listed on my preceding post. It did not have a subcaliber tungsten core but an 88mm APCBC core. So it may sometimes breakup. Check the following to the image.
12.8cm Pzrg TS
subcalibre: 88mm Pzgr 39 (13.1kg weight), velocity: 1230m/s, reliable penetration (5 out of 5) at 30° against RHA:
1000m: 200mm if breaking up / 264mm if staying intact*
2000m: 200mm if breaking up / 220mm if staying intact*
3000m: 178mm (always intact)
4000m: 140mm (always intact)

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14028
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: Maus

#10

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 17 Oct 2018, 07:46

Also bear in mind that the APCR ammunition of late-war guns were not used in any significant quantities, and for some guns not at all, so its inclusion is purely theoretical (or, I suspect, as a means of balance).

In other words, while you may argue that, from a point of historical accuracy, the 12,8 cm PzGr. 43 should have better penetration stats, that same argument must also call for it to be removed entirely. You can't have it both ways.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Maus

#11

Post by critical mass » 17 Oct 2018, 09:38

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
17 Oct 2018, 07:46
In other words, while you may argue that, from a point of historical accuracy, the 12,8 cm PzGr. 43 should have better penetration stats, that same argument must also call for it to be removed entirely. You can't have it both ways.
I don´t follow this argument here, Christian. The Pzgr.43 was the full calibre AP projectile, standart service issue. All JT and MAUS used it. The 26.3kg APC was for Stuhrer Emil and FLAK guns, only. The Pzgr 40 (Hk.) was the limited issue, tungsten carbide penetrator, which may not have been adopted for service in this gun (though we don´t know about the Pzgr.40 (Sk.).

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: Maus

#12

Post by Destroyer500 » 17 Oct 2018, 11:12

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
17 Oct 2018, 07:46
Also bear in mind that the APCR ammunition of late-war guns were not used in any significant quantities, and for some guns not at all, so its inclusion is purely theoretical (or, I suspect, as a means of balance).

In other words, while you may argue that, from a point of historical accuracy, the 12,8 cm PzGr. 43 should have better penetration stats, that same argument must also call for it to be removed entirely. You can't have it both ways.
In small quantities but it existed.Thats what i wanted to know.In the game a lot of things are completly wrong from their real life version.I wish the games mechanics allowed for shells to break and for armor to bent,but we cant have it all.I would like to know from which book or millitary report these photos come from.
Attachments
discarding sabot types.jpg
128mmpzgrts.jpg
Last edited by Destroyer500 on 17 Oct 2018, 17:29, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14028
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Re: Maus

#13

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 17 Oct 2018, 15:17

critical mass wrote:
17 Oct 2018, 09:38
I don´t follow this argument here, Christian. The Pzgr.43 was the full calibre AP projectile, standart service issue. All JT and MAUS used it. The 26.3kg APC was for Stuhrer Emil and FLAK guns, only. The Pzgr 40 (Hk.) was the limited issue, tungsten carbide penetrator, which may not have been adopted for service in this gun (though we don´t know about the Pzgr.40 (Sk.).
You're right, I mis-wrote the designation. My point was towards the APCR ammunition.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Maus

#14

Post by critical mass » 17 Oct 2018, 22:05

The source of these documents is found in the compilation of ww2 period documents collected under the archival signature BAMA RH8-1326B (primary source Freiburg, unpublished).

Also, You might want to have the 4 AKB Krupp test range shot data, compiled from TechMisEur for the 12.8cm Pzgr43 (courtesey M. Krogfuss, attached) and the 1.23 times obliquity calculus from p.73 tab. III.BIOS final report 1343 Item No. 2 (primary source, attached).

and, the revised penetration graphs for german guns in Anl. zu o46/44 g.K.v. 26.6.1944 (primary source, attached).

Finally, for the older, 12.8cm Pzgr. Gg (capped AP-HE without windscreen), the penetration graph from the Lilienthalreport 166.
This older 12.8cm Pzgr Gg was eventually replaced by the capped and ballistic capped Pzgr43 in Jagtiger and Maus (only FLAK and Stuhrer Emil had PzgrGg to my knowledge).
Attachments
pg39_penetration.jpg
OKW1944.jpg
5a500ac84cde6_InternalKruppDoc.thumb.jpg.cfca51ae5d90fe75e542a504667584ce.jpg
angle_multiplier.jpg

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: 11 Apr 2016, 13:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: Maus

#15

Post by Stiltzkin » 17 Oct 2018, 23:19

ve been playing war thunder
A game may never replicate actual warfare, or may only serve as an approximation, but for this it would need to have the characteristics of a simulation, which WT does not (to my understanding, it is no Steel Fury Kharkov 42 nor a NATO simulator like Steel Beasts pro PE 2.0). I have been "advising" developers and modding (WW2) games before and played almost all WW2 games originating from Russia or their former republics, since I was a child. This encompassed arcade titles and more "realistic" titles and it is safe to say (after going through dozens of .ini files or editing lines of codes) that there is absolutely no intention of depicting the truth and the word "balance" is merely used as an excuse to camouflage the obvious.
On the contrary, these games serve as a propaganda tool (it is plain and simple: Soviet revisionism), nationalism is in the focus, to demonstrate the superiority of the Soviet regime, so do not ever expect an accurate representation of a WW2 game from any of these countries.
If "balance" was truly desired, then all Soviet advantages would be trimmed as well, which they are not.

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”