"Tank Guns, Tank Armor, and reliable information" Topic

Talking WWII here

I am not a tread head, nor do I have any aspirations of becoming one. I'll let others be the 'experts' here. I'll admit I'm being lazy but I've got better things to do with my wargaming time.

I am looking for a source of information that will give me a good idea of the 'relative' inter-relationships between Tank Guns and Tank Armor.

I want something sufficiently detailed that it distinguishes the difference between the .50 cal M-2 Machine gun and . . . say an MG 42 when firing on a lightly armored vehicle.

That said, I don't want something that is 'super detailed'.

This source of information could be a book, a rules set or a web page.

I have a set of rules that I like but these rules appear to be highly suspect where the relative effectiveness of WWII armor and anti-tank guns are concerned.

In essence, I want to be able to quickly and easily rate the armor and anti-tank weapons of the period with sufficient granularity to show the differences between weapons and vehicles where significant differences are warranted.

Any help out there?

mjc

"tank vs tank" (by kenneth macksey, 1988 isbn# 0-88162-282-6) does give some handy comparison tables relative to gun/ammo vs armor of the common vehicles of WW2. it does not detail smaller weapons' performance though. you might have to look those up separately on the 'net.

For the Guns part link

For an already integrated system panzer-war.com

It's accurate enough for gaming/gubmint work depending on how much granularity you want. No guarantees given or implied. YMMV.

cheers

wwiivehicles.com

If you poke around in this website a bit you'll find that he has tables for each vehicle showing its armor on each face, where the information is available. Additionally, there are tables for each country showing data on armor penetration of guns and their various types of shells. Not sure it has anything smaller than the .50, though.

Guns vrs Armour is very informative: link

If you want a back of the envelope summary of machine-gun AP performance, mine would be that 12.7mm / 0.50" MGs penetrate half-tracks, and rifle-calibre MGs penetrate nothing at all.

Dream on, quidveritas!

On the one hand, you can if you like send me e-mail (jdsalt AT gotadsl.co.uk) and receive the annoyingly large file of penetration figures I have accumulated over the years from 200+ published and unpublished sources.

If you want to be kinder to your brain, you can ask instead for a copy of the article I wrote for the Nugget entitled "my favourite penetration formula", which gives 11 different armour penetration formulae. Yes, after years collecting penetration data, I realised the pointlessness of it, so started collecting equations instead.

Or, if you can find them, you can simply lift the gun and armour values from the WRG WW2 rules, or ASL, or the "Combat Mission" series of computer games, any of which may have points the grog would find quibbleworthy, but are all IMHO pretty darned accurate.

Or to take the shortest cut of all, just find armour penetration in millimetres of RHAe with the simplified Morin formula (not my favourite, I hasten to add):

Pen(mm) = (k * m * v^2) / d^2

where m is the mass of the projectile in Kg, d it diameter in mm, v its striking velocity in m/s and k a plate quality constant with a value of about 0.17 or 0.18.

All the best,

John.

Another great source for this info is the ATS and ASL game sets.

Pen(mm) = (k * m * v^2) / d^2

So, our favorite 672gr (roughly 44g) .50cal round, impacting at 600m/s would punch roughly (.175*.044*(600^2))/(12.7^2) = 17.2mm of RHA equivalent.

I think the 'better' answer is that anything 'armored' is invulnerable to rifle-caliber MGs, and .50cals will punch halftracks, like 4th Curiasser said.

Pen(mm) = (k * m * v^2) / d^2

So, our favorite 672gr (roughly 44g) .50cal round, impacting at 600m/s would punch roughly (.175*.044*(600^2))/(12.7^2) = 17.2mm of RHA equivalent.

I found some info for the MG42 in Wikipedia (m = 12gm, d = 7.92mm, and muzzle velocity = 755 m/s). Punching those numbers into this formula yields a penetration of 19 mm. Dropping the impact speed to 700 lowers the penetration to 16.4. So it would seam the MG42 also punches halftracks. Or did I mess something up?

Play "Combat Mission" and you'll find MG-42s in the SF role massacring light armour, so some people whose opinion I respect obviously think this is reasonable.

I would mention that using any formula like this suggests that proper AP ammunition is being used; ball ammunition would not achieve the same effect.

Jentz' "Panzertruppen" gives figures for 7.92mm at 100m of 13mm for SmKH and 8mm for SmK ammunition. Given that Jentz' figures are for armour sloped at 30 degrees, and the formula gives results at normal impact, if we apply the armour basis modifier of 0.8 for 30 degree slope, the formula gives remarkably good agreement with Jentz' figure for SmkH.

Another thing to remember when dealing with small-calibre weapons against light armour is that a lot of the thin armour plates on light AFVs are not RHA, but face-hardened or homo-hard plate. For example, the sides of the US M3 half-track used 0.25 inch face-hardened plate, as against 0.31 inch RHA for the M5, but both were supposed to give equivalent ballistic protection. Adjust the "fudge factor" in Morin's equation accordingly, bearing in mind that better plate gets a lower value of k.

All the best,

John.

No, you didn't mess anything up, but you might want to look at a ballistic profile of an 8mm mauser. You're under 600m/s at 350m range, while that .50bmg only drops under 600m/s at 750m.

I am not a tread head… I've got better things to do with my wargaming time.

Ouch! :-)

Another endorsement for Guns vs. Armor (see above).

My head hurts.

"Ouch!"

Not really. I spend all my 'technical time' on Great War Aircraft. It's a full time job all by itself.

So . . . no time for other stuff. I just rely on others whenever possible.

mjc

Wow. And people say my interest in just how much hot lead infantry small arms can put out is perverse.

The thing to keep in mind here is that test range data is not particularly like field experience in such things. The best and fastest system I've used to date is the one in Command Decision, roughly summarised as follows:

Assign an armor factor to the vehicle (50mm=1 point, for example). Assign a penetration value to the incoming round (75mm=1 point, for example). The player then rolls a d10 for each hit, adding the result to the difference between the penetration and armor factors. Then have a table where higher values are more disastrous for the target.

Keep in mind, I started WWII gaming with Tractics and used it for many years. I can do precision, but I prefer the above, especially since it makes things more random, which is the general experience of penetration in the field.

Omemin wrote:

The thing to keep in mind here is that test range data is not particularly like field experience in such things.

As armour penetration is a physical phenomenon, it one of the few things that stays pretty much the same from test range to battlefield. Hit probabilities drop by one or two orders of magnitude; but, given a hit, the ability of a proectile to punch through a given thickness of armour remains just the same.

The best and fastest system I've used to date is the one in Command Decision, roughly summarised as follows:

Assign an armor factor to the vehicle (50mm=1 point, for example). Assign a penetration value to the incoming round (75mm=1 point, for example).

I don't understand why you are assigning defence values at 50mm per point and strike values at 75mm per point. Doesn't it make more sense to put them on the same scale?

And, if you care to refer to the original post, a 50mm increment for defence values is hardly going to permit a distinction to be made between 12.7mm and 7.92mm MGs. Indeed you are going to lump all half-tracks and armoured cars, together with most medium and cruiser tanks up to mid war, into the same armour class. Presumably the Germans thought that up-armouring the Pz III from 30mm to 50mm (and later to 70mm) frontal armour made a difference, so I expect the OP would want to show those differences.

I prefer the above, especially since it makes things more random, which is the general experience of penetration in the field.

Randomness is also the general experience of penetration on the test range -- which is why penetration criteria are epxressed in terms of, say, a 50-50 split between a shot win and a plate win.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have always considered that any wargaming armour penetration system that does not include a substantial element of randomness is barking mad and wildly inaccurate. The question of exactly how much randomness there should be is an intersting one, and I have previously posted a suggested odds system using the P(kill) curve from Ronnie Shephard et al's book on Operational Research, in this thread:

TMP link

However, that was not the question the original poster asked.

All the best,

John.

The reason for the difference in basis for points value is the addition of the d10 roll. The whole system steps back from the absolute penetration (if I miss by 1mm, no effect) problem from straight tables.

The randomness does increase in the field because test data is fixed gun vs. straight-up plate. In the field, variations in cover, weather, target angle (including tilted vehicle on uneven ground), extra attachments (not just sandbags and the like, but personal effects as well), and so on, make field results far more random insofar as applying range data in a wargame is concerned.

From everything I have ever seen or heard (including personal experience firing weapons), a 7.92mm round isn't going to penetrate an armored vehicle except by sheer luck. A 12.7mm weapon penetrates stuff that smaller rounds just don't, like any building and most WWII light armor. The M-2's effectiveness against light armored vehicles is a major reason why the US never developed an antitank rifle.

Another point should be addressed in your rules as well. Any fire on a tank by a crew-served weapon will usually cause it to "seek better positions". Crew-served weapons mean a reasonably large enemy force, which in turn usually means a weapon that can ruin the tankers' day. Gamers lack the "live to fight another day" responsibility that leaders in a war carry.

Omemin wrote:

The reason for the difference in basis for points value is the addition of the d10 roll. The whole system steps back from the absolute penetration (if I miss by 1mm, no effect) problem from straight tables.

Obviously, there is nothing to prevent a dice roll being added to a scheme where points are awarded equally for armour thickness and expected penetration thickness.

I haven't come across any wargames rules that give deterministic armour penetration in the way you suggest, but precision to 1mm is clearly daft, as during WW2 armour plate was not even manufactured to that degree of precision.

However, I still don't see what advantage comes from assigning armour and penetration values on different scales. If we assign strike and defence values at one-tenth the rate you suggest -- 1 point per 5mm for armour, per 7.5mm for penetration, which are probably about the smallest values before we reach spurious precision -- then a projectile will have to achieve a 50% overmatch of the plate in order to get an attack differential of 0 (whatever effect that corresponds to on your CRT). This implies that you are taking the probability of a K-O to depend on the percentage overmatch (odds), rather than the absolute overmatch (differential); fine, I think either is a defensible idea. But look what happens for zero overmatch and for 200% overmatch:

Zero overmatch:
50mm proj (7 pts) vs 50mm plate (10 pts), differential -3
75mm proj (10 pts) vs 75mm plate (15 pts), differential -5
100mm proj (13 pts) vs 100mm plate (20 pts), differential -7
150mm proj (20 pts) vs 150mm plate (30 pts), differential -10

200% overmatch:
75mm proj (10 pts) vs 25mm plate (5 pts), differential +5
150mm proj (20 pts) vs 50mm plate (10 pts), differential +10
225mm proj (30 pts) vs 75mm plate (15 pts), differential +15
300mm proj (40 pts) vs 100mm plate (20 pts), differential +20

So using this scheme, matched projectiles do less well against thicker armour, whereas overmatching projetiles do better. This corresponds to no phenomenon I have ever heard of; so it seems to me that such a rules mechanic is badly broken.

The randomness does increase in the field because test data is fixed gun vs. straight-up plate. In the field, variations in cover, weather, target angle (including tilted vehicle on uneven ground), extra attachments (not just sandbags and the like, but personal effects as well), and so on, make field results far more random insofar as applying range data in a wargame is concerned.

The pysics doesn't change. I stand by my point that given a hit, the ability of a proectile to punch through a given thickness of armour remains just the same. The effective thickness of armour presented will vary according to the target aspect, yes, but hardly in an altogether random fashion; much in armoured tactics depends on the idea that flank shots are better than frontal ones. I hardly think that vehicle tilt on uneven ground is going to make much difference, and even the hardest compo ration biscuits in personal stowage aren't going to do much to deflect AP shot. Cover I would expect to be factored into the P(hit) calculation, rather than armour penetration; AP doesn't go through hills well, so you can count a hit on the crest an AFV is jockeying behind as a miss. And while I am aware of the "hot round" effect, and seem to recall Rexford pondering on the embrittling effects of exteme cold, I have yet to meet any set of wargames rules that claimed to deal with such marginal effects, so I rather doubt that weather will have much effect (and even if it did, it would a global influence over a whole battle, not a round-to-round variation).

Of all the phenomena you could possibly have chosen to exemplify increased randomness in the field, armour penetration is without doubt the very worst.

From everything I have ever seen or heard (including personal experience firing weapons), a 7.92mm round isn't going to penetrate an armored vehicle except by sheer luck.

Ditto the Abdominal Snowman cited Zaloga in refutation of that point before you even made it, and if it were true, one wonders why celebrated SS-Wunderkind Wittman was such an idiot as to waste his co-ax ammo shooting up half-tracks and carriers at V-B. And it just so happens that I have just finished transcribing an account of 47 (RM) Commando's battle at Port-en-Bessin that mentions a bullet coming through the side of a carrier and wounding one of its passengers. Finally, if AP in that calibre doesn't work, I wonder why a bloke I met from Chertsey some while ago devoted so much of his time to studying the effects of 7.62mm NATO AP on light vehicle armour.

Another point should be addressed in your rules as well. Any fire on a tank by a crew-served weapon will usually cause it to "seek better positions".

Thre are lots of other points the rules should address; most WW2 wargames rules are in my experience very weak on spotting, command control, fatigue, communications and logistics. But it should be a cause of despair if we can't make a decent fist of representing one of the simplest acts of war known to man, chucking a projectile at a plate and seeing if it goes through.

It's not rocket science, at least not until ATGWs are introduced after the war.

All the best,

John.

To belabor the point about the penetration of US halftracks by German MGs, long before Zaloga I heard it from one of my uncles (former combat engineer 4th Armored NWE).

As I remember it 'The Germans had better halftracks. The armor on ours was only good enough to keep their machinegun bullets from going through both sides – they bounced around inside after penetrating. Our machine gun bullets bounced off their halftracks.'

Anecdotal of course.

"I stand by my point that given a hit, the ability of a projectile to punch through a given thickness of armour remains just the same. The effective thickness of armour presented will vary according to the target aspect, yes, but hardly in an altogether random fashion; much in armoured tactics depends on the idea that flank shots are better than frontal ones."

The difficulty comes with the fact that the game is not a 100% accurate depiction of the situation on the ground, given scale, "eyeballing" angles, etc. Thus, the random system is probably equally accurate and FAR more playable. And, if you have sense enough to note side armor thicknesses in the system I've described, the same tactical pressures apply.

Again, the reason for different scales for points in penetration and armor thickness is because you are ADDING a d10 roll to the one and not to the other. If you start with even scales, you are adding to something that is already even, thereby adding to the penetrative power. That is obviously not correct. As you say, it isn't rocket science.

You also need to understand that I am a mathematician. That said, there's no way I'm slogging through a penetration formula for every hit, nor am I going to try to produce the reams of tables necessary to work it all out beforehand so I don't have to take several minutes per shot in calculations during the game. It comes down to playability and a reasonably realistic outcome.

I guaran-bleep-tee that ordinary players aren't going to go through the calculations, nor are they going to wait for me to do it for every shot in a World War II armor game.

Another point: the system you describe makes penetration an absolute at a given range and angle. Read the copious descriptions from actual participants in war who tell you that ain't so.

Actually, there are variations in the composition of the rounds themselves (variations in projectile weight, charge, etc.), and in environmental factors. Variations in ambient temperature impact muzzle velocities – lower on cold days, higher when it is warmer (particularly with smaller rounds), as well as air resistance and velocity loss. A 10 or 15 percent change in projectile velocity will have a noticeable effect on penetration and accuracy.

On the other hand Omemin, I also feel that your system is too random and divorces the variability of result too much from what should be relatively easy to determine physical parameters.

P.S. Mr. Salt, have you updated that penetration data relative to the set that was floating around 3-4 years ago? If so would you take it amiss if I pinged you about it? I would also be interested in all of your formulas – I can't find the programs that I wrote based on the two I had (twenty plus years ago).

You will also need a formula for the angle of the falling shot at any distance, remembering that friction with the air makes the curve significantly different from a parabola. Then there's the random perturbations that can cause the projectile to wobble in flight, so you'll need a formula for the angle of the point of the shot on arrival. And so it goes.

As I said, give me playable randomized system that is reasonably accurate and I'll be a whole lot happier.

You will also need a formula for the angle of the falling shot at any distance, remembering that friction with the air makes the curve significantly different from a parabola

What I use.

link

Omemin wrote:

Again, the reason for different scales for points in penetration and armor thickness is because you are ADDING a d10 roll to the one and not to the other.

Repeating it doesn't make it any more sensible an answer. I have already pointed out why having differently-graded scales with an additive dice-roll is a badly broken system; and I notice that you have failed to address the point.
I also note the explanation by Frank Chadwick on the armour system he designed for "Command Decision", which does not seem to bear much resemblance to your description of it:
link

If you start with even scales, you are adding to something that is already even, thereby adding to the penetrative power. That is obviously not correct.

You could always used opposed dice rolls, one for the projectile and one for the plate; or you could add a fixed amount to all defence values; or you could produce a CRT giving different expected results for different positive and negative differentials. Any of these schemes would work perfectly well with equally-graded scales, so saying it's "obviously not correct" is plain wrong.

You also need to understand that I am a mathematician. That said, there's no way I'm slogging through a penetration formula for every hit,

Nobody has ever suggested doing any such thing, so you won't have to.

nor am I going to try to produce the reams of tables necessary to work it all out beforehand so I don't have to take several minutes per shot in calculations during the game.

However, someone, namely the game designer, is going to have to do something to work these things out beforehand. Assuming that the game designer wants the relative armour-defeating power of different guns to bear some resemblance to their real-life prototypes, he is going to have to consider some source of data for their performance. Two ways of doing this are to refer to published armour penetration tables (or possibly tables of fighting ranges), or to produce your own results from some empirical formula. Something like this is going to be necessary even for a simple Goldilocks classification of guns (small, medium and large) in order to decide which band any given weapon falls into. Your own proposal of allocating one point per 75mm of penetration obviously depends of knowing the thickness of armour a weapon can penetrate. So where do you propose to get these numbers from, if not from tables or a formula?

Another point: the system you describe makes penetration an absolute at a given range and angle.

No it doesn't, stop talking such unutterable tosh. I suspect that you have't bothered to follow the link to see the P(kill) system I described, but as it used an odds-based CRT using 1d6 it should be obvious that it is random, not deteministic.
Presumably you also didn't bother to read the bit where I said

For the avoidance of doubt, I have always considered that any wargaming armour penetration system that does not include a substantial element of randomness is barking mad and wildly inaccurate.

Omemin wrote:

Read the copious descriptions from actual participants in war who tell you that ain't so.

I can recall Cyril Joly in "Take these men" complaining that the penetration tables they were given exagerrated the effectiveness of British weapons as compared to German, but I cannot recall any tankman's reminiscences discussing the degree of randomness of armour penetration. What descriptions do you have in mind, precisely?

Goragrad wrote:

P.S. Mr. Salt,

Aaargh!

have you updated that penetration data relative to the set that was floating around 3-4 years ago? If so would you take it amiss if I pinged you about it?

The most recent version is dated 11 Nov 06, because I'm too lazy to have included the few snippets of new data I've found since then. If you haven't got that version, e-mail me on jdsalt AT gotadsl.co.uk and I'll send the new one – and the same offer goes for anyone else who wants a copy.

I would also be interested in all of your formulas – I can't find the programs that I wrote based on the two I had (twenty plus years ago).

E-mail me at the above address and I'll send you the "Nugget" article that includes all eleven formulae. If you can run Python scripts, I can also send you a copy of the program that implements them all. Again, the same offer goes for anyone else who wants a copy.

All the best,

John.

By way of something like a belated answer to the original question, here is an armour penetration scheme I have devised for use with my tank skirmish game. This resolves individual hits; a more aggregated treatment will need a different approach, but the relative penetration scores of weapons may still be of interest.

The penetration values tabulated below were calculated by using Dehn's penetration formula against steel plate with an ultimate tensile strength of 800 MPa, and applying a 0.8 slope modifier for 30 degrees. Each point on the scale corresponds to 10mm of armour thickness, so AFV armour should be rated on the same basis.

Three tables follow; one for conventional shot and shell (AP, APC, APCBC), one for sub-calibre shot (APCR, APCNR, APDS) and one for hollow-charge shell (HEAT) and, for convenience, some infantry HE anti-tank weapons.

Once a hit is scored, subtract the target's armour value from the shot's strike value to find the attack differential. For conventional rounds, the attack differential may never exceed the number shown in [square brackets] after the weapon's name on the table (equivalent to the projectile calibre in 25mm increments). For sub-calibre and HEAT projectiles, the differential may never exceed 1 (to show the reduced behind-armour effects of these rounds).

The shooting and target players make an opposed dice roll, each rolling 1d6. The attack differential (which may be negative) plus the attacker's roll must exceed the target's roll to score a kill.

It will be noted that for a differential of 0, the probability of scoring a kill is 42%. This is taken to correspond to a 50% chance of penetration combined with an 83% chance of a kill after penetration (the maximum figure given in Shephard et al's P(kill) table). Also, 42 is a nice way to celebrate the close of Towel Day.

				Armour-piercing strike value table
SV	British			American		Russian			German
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2	15mm[1]			0.5-in M2[1]		DShK 12.7mm[1]	
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3							20mm TNSh[1]		2cm cannon[1], 
										*7.5cm L24[3]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4	Hotchkiss 25mm[1], 	37mm M30[2]					3.7cm 36, 34(t)[2]
	Bofors 37mm[1]			  					
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5	2-pdr[1]		37mm M3[2]		45mm M37[2]		3.7cm KwK 38(t)[2],
										5cm L42[2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6	*25-pdr[4]		75mm M2[3]		45mm M42[2],    	4.7cm PaK 36(t)[2],
							76mm F11[3]		*10.5cm leFH18[4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7	75mm Mk5[3]		75mm M3 or M5[3]	76mm F34[3],		5cm L60[2],
							76mm M42[3]		7.5cm PaK 97/38[3]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
8	6-pdr L45[2]								
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9	6-pdr L52[2]		57mm M1[2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10				3-in M1 (e)[3], 	*152mm TG[6],		PaK 36(r)[3], 
				76mm M1 (e)[3] 	        57mm M43[2]		7.5cm L43-48[3]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11	77mm[3]			3-in M1 (l)[3],	        85mm D5[4],  		8.8cm L56[4],
				76mm M1 (l)[3]	      	107mm M1910[4]		10cm K17[4] 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12				90mm M3 (e)[4]   	*152mm ML20[6]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13	17-pdr[3]               90mm M3 (l)[4]  	107mm M60[4]		7.5cm L70[3], 
		 								10cm K18[4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14										10.5cm FlaK[4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15							122mm A19[5]		10.5cm sK18/40[4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16										8.8cm L71[4]
										12.8cm FlaK[5]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17							100mm M44[4]		12.8 PaK PzGr43[5]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range attenuation -1 per 500m for most projectiles,-1 per 1000m if *asterisked.
Numbers in [square brackets] indicate the maximum differential a projectile can achieve.
				Sub-calibre armour-Piercing strike value table
SV	British			American		Russian			German
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4										2cm PzGr40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6										3.7cm PzGr40	
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7							45mm M37 BPK		5cm L42 PzGr40  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8							45mm M42 BPK		SPzB 41 PzGr41,
										4.7cm PzGr40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9							76mm F34 BPK		5cm L60 PzGr40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10	2-pdr APSV								PJK 41 PzGr41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11	
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12							57mm M43 BPK		PaK 36(r) PzGr40, 
										7.5cm L43-48 PzGr40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13	6-pdr APDS					85mm D5 BPK	
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14				3-in M1 HVAP,					8.8cm L56 PzGr40
				76mm M1 HVAP		 			
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15										7.5cm L70 PzGr40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16				90mm  M3 HVAP	
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17										7.5cm PaK 41 PzGr41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	
18	77mm APDS			
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19										7.5cm PaK 44 PzGr41,
										8.8cm L71 PzGr40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20	17-pdr APDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range attenuation -1 per 250m.
The maximum differential a sub-calibre weapon can achieve is always [1].

				Hollow-charge strike value table
SV	British			American		Russian			German
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2							*VPGS-40 grenade,
							RPG-40 grenade	
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3										*Schuss Gr P40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4	No.68 grenade		M9 grenade					Gew Gr GGP,
										Gew Gr 30,
 										*Bundle charge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5				57mm RR						7.5cm Hl,
 										*Panzerwurfmine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6	**Sticky bomb, 	        M9A1 grenade,		*RPG-43 grenade	        **Teller mine
	**Gammon bomb, 	        **Satchel charge
	**Hawkins mine	
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	
7	PIAT Mk 1 bomb		75mm howitzer,		76mm howitzer		7.5cm Hl/A
        			75mm RR						Gew Gr 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8	PIAT Mk 2 bomb					*RPG-6 grenade		7.5cm Hl/B,   
										10.5cm Hl/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9	95mm howitzer		Bazooka						7.5cm Hl/C,
										8.8cm Hl,
       										10.5cm Hl/B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10				105mm howitzer		LMG rocket-mine,	10.5cm Hl/C,
							82mm rocket,		Gew Gr 61,
							122mm howitzer		**HHL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11										8cm PAW600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12										**HHL 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13				
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14										Panzerfaust Klein
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15				
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16										15cm Hl/A, 	
										Panzerfaust Gross, 
										Panzerschreck
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17				
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18										3.7cm StielGr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------	
Range attenuation does not apply to hollow-charge weapons.
The maximum differential a hollow-charge weapon can achieve is always [1].
Weapons shown *asterisked must be hand-thrown.
Weapons shown **double asterisked must be hand-placed.
Hand-placed or hand-thrown weapons attack side armour.