British 75mm MkV tank gun

[kesh]

read on wikipedia, that an apcbc round was produced for this, with a higher muzzle velocity. spww2 only has ap at penetration 8 for all versions of this gun, as far as i can tell.

Ordnance QF 75mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_75_mm#References)

sounds fishy to me.

traced this source though, go to page 7

fire and movement (http://www.strukturalnifondy.cz/ww2ol/ww2pen.pdf)

is there any truth in this? i hate that damn gun and it would be nice if cromwells got some decent firepower

[Mobhack]

The values for the UK 75mm were discusses many years ago. It's chief value is as an HE thrower, just like the equivalent Sherman 75mm. Most targets were dealt with by HE, not AP.

UK armoured formations did retain some 6 pdr armed units, because the plain 6 pdr AP was better then the 75mm, and the APDS vastly superior, for the limited times armour needed engaging. In addition 17 pdr specialist tank-killing vehicles were also available. Not to Churchill units - hence the keeping on of some 6pdr armed ones in some formations.

Cheers
Andy

[kesh]

yes i know all that, except the old discussion. i'm curious to know if there's any truth in this second type of ap ammo.

[cbo]

read on wikipedia, that an apcbc round was produced for this, with a higher muzzle velocity. spww2 only has ap at penetration 8 for all versions of this gun, as far as i can tell.

is there any truth in this? i hate that damn gun and it would be nice if cromwells got some decent firepower



I think you are right being sceptical about this "magic bullet" for the British 75mm gun. They had available the range of US 75mm ammunition, meaning the M48 HE round, the M61 APC and the M72 AP (see this one: http://wargaming.info/armour04.htm).

- The M61 was in reality an APCBC round, the Americans didn't record the ballistic cap in the nomenclature for their rounds. The British appears to have used this both with and without its explosive filler. The British were never very keen on explosive fillers in armour piercing rounds and while not having the filler would reduce the destructive effect post-penetration effect, it would avoid problems with premature detonation.
- The M48 came in several different flavours, with three different propellant charges and two different fuzes. It would appear that only the supercharge round was carried in British tanks.
- It seems doubtfull, that the British actually used the M72 uncapped, solid round in combat.

It would appear that they also carried a British made smoke round.

That leaves us with the "magic bullet", an APCBC round with a muzzle velocity of 2,600 ft/s (790 m/s) and penetration of 103mm at 500 yards. The only thing I know of which comes close is the T45 HVAP round, which had a muzzle velocity of 2850 ft/s and penetrated 117mm at 500 yards. But that was an experimental round, never used in combat AFAIK.

Whether there was some sort of "supercharge" APCBC round available is hard to tell from the limited evidence you've found, but it is not something which has found its way into manuals and such, nor is it something I've ever read about in unit histories etc. So if it ever existed, it was not likely fielded.

If you Cromwells run into enemy armour, better use the speed to get away or keep some Challengers or Fireflies nearby - after all, they were included in the TO&E at one per platoon for that exact reason http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

cbo

[kesh]

thanks for that. i'm a fan of the 6 pounder, and the six pounder got the first tiger kills of the western allies, both as an AT gun and tank vs tank.

[Marek_Tucan]

Why there was no APDS shot for 75mm? With some supercharge it might be pretty effective and give 75mm armed tanks somethign to fire at German heavies... Was it because APDS was developped by artillery for antitank guns and armored corps got it just as a by-product?

[kesh]

almost certainly because the barrel and breech wasn't designed for the pressures involved. that was why i was sceptical

the western allies developed similar calibre guns (17 pounder at 76.2mm and M1 76mm) to take high velocity rounds and they were much bigger heavier things.

[cbo]

Marek_Tucan said:
Why there was no APDS shot for 75mm? With some supercharge it might be pretty effective and give 75mm armed tanks somethign to fire at German heavies... Was it because APDS was developped by artillery for antitank guns and armored corps got it just as a by-product?



Dont know why, but it could well have had to do with the somewhat convoluted development history of British tank guns. They had always been high-pressure, high-velocity anti-tank weapons and when they were looking for guns for the next generation of tanks in 1942, it would appear that the weapons of choice were the 17-pdr and Vickers-Armstrongs high velocity 75mm L/50 gun. As the latter turned out to be too big for the Cromwell, something had to be cooked up fast and Vickers-Armstrong could offer a medium velocity 75mm that fired US ammunition and fitted in the 6-pdr mount. I dont think it was ever considered anything but a stop-gap solution until something better was on offer.

As the gun was a temporary measure and fired US ammunition, it might not have been considered worth the effort to spend APDS development time on it, particularily since the Americans were apparently working on the T45 HVAP round anyway.

Add to that the limited advantages you would get from APDS/HVAP in the 75mm gun. APDS would probably not be a much better performer than the experimental US T45 HVAP round, except at longer distances, which wouldn't matter because early APDS was so inaccurate anyway. Of course 117mm penetration is a lot compared with 66mm, but not enough to make a real difference in combat and a far cry from the 208mm of the 17-pdr or even the 157mm of the 76mm US gun.
Add to that the fact that APDS/HVAP was always in short supply, something which would probably have been clear even as APDS/HVAP was developed. Those rounds used strategic materials that was needed for many other purposes and always in short supply, even for the allies.

Then there is the issue of the guns design raised by Kesh. I dont know how much pressure the UK 75mm could handle, but the max. powder pressure of the US 75mm gun was 38,000 PSI, the same as the long US 3" M7 but less than the 43,000 PSI of the 76mm M1A1 tank gun. And a lot less than the always "hot" UK guns, the 2-pdr producing 44,800 PSI, the 6-pdr. 46,000 PSI and the 17-pdr 47,000 PSI.
The M7 and M1A1 fired the same projectiles and achieved the same performance, but the M1A1 did so using a a smaller cartridge with a hotter load, apparently.
The chamber capaciy of the US 75mm was 88 CUI vs 142 CUI of the M1A1 and nowhere near the 300 CUI of the 17-pdr. It was even smaller than the 6-pdr at 100 CUI.

I'm no ballistician, but I'd guess that the combination of a small chamber, shortish barrel and inability to raise pressure to the required levels made it rather pointless to persue APDS/HVAP for the 75mm gun.

Perhaps a similar argument could be made with regards to HEAT. That did not require velocity, but a 75mm HEAT would only raise penetration to 75-90mm, at least if you assume performance on par with German 75mm HEAT rounds. Better than the 66mm of the M61 APC(BC) at 500 yards, but still not significantly so.

cbo

[Marek_Tucan]

Thanks for detailed response!

[DRG]

Good to see you back Claus.

Don

[CharlesM]

I am Charles Markuss, one of the researchers for the ASL system. M72 AP was solid uncapped shot designed for use against homogeneous armour. By the time it was in service with the British in the M3 the Germans were using face-hardened armour against which the M72 often shattered, like the 40mm 2-ponder AP shot. Theoretically the round was APHE but at the time the USA had no suitable fuze for it. The British therefore simply filled the cavity with inert material to boost AP performance, and did so even after a fuze appeared because the first batches at least were very unreliable. M61 was, as stated, APCBC designed for use against face-hardened armour which was still in use on some parts of German tanks, especially the cats. The US army considered developing an APCR round for their 75mm but the performance increase would have been marginal and really a waste of precious tungsten. If they ever seriously considered it (doubtful) I suspect that the British felt the same way about attempting to develop an APDS round for their 75mm as factories were at full capacity producing 6-pounder and 17-pounder APDS. Moreover, as stated already, I doubt whether the guns would have withstood the chamber pressures of more propellant behind the projectile. APDS is of course also hazardous to friendly personnel. The British and US 75mm guns werre really designed for HE and WP.

Incidentally the US army was given 6-pounder APDS for their 57mm gun by Britain but due to the scarcity of targets only about 180 rounds were ever used in Italy, and something over 11,000 in NW Europe.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Charles
I would be verry interested to know which German vehicles had face hardened armour and on which surfaces. I have had some thoughts on the matter myself see.
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=548307&page=1&view=collap sed&sb=4&o=&fpart=1
I think that PZ IV turret is face hardened, and the cats side and rear armour was face hardened, also and I believe sdkfz 231 and 232 came in face hardened armor? do you know if this is correct?

[CharlesM]

Leave it with me for a few days.

Regards

[CharlesM]

Churchill units often had a troop of 4 M10 76mm or Achilles 17-pdr SPs attached for this purpose. There was a drive to fit as many 75mm guns before D-Day to Churchill Mk IVs (only one Mk III went to Normandy), turning them into Mk VIs. This was done by issuing conversion kits fitted in the field. Once the AP deficiency came to light some 6-pdr Mk IVs were retained, though by D-Day some units were completely equipped with 75mms - 6th Guards Tank Brigade being one.

[CharlesM]

I've done some checking, and what I said earlier about the cats is not quite right (see below). Face-hardened armour was used on the 4, 6 and 8-wheeled German armoured cars, i.e from SdKfz 221 through to 234 inclusive.

Pzkfw III Ausf G onwards and IV Ausf F1 onwards had face-hardened frontal armour, except for the glacis which was homogeneous, presumably because the slope was so shallow that the extra hardness was not needed, except for the glacis on the Pzkfw IV Ausf D, which had only this plate hardened, but throughout, rather than just face-hardened. PzKfw III Ausf G onwards and IV Ausf F1 onwards had face-hardened upper and lower hull sides, but not turret sides or on any rear armour plates. The last 50% of PzKfw IV Ausf J had only homogeneous plates.

For Panthers it is a bit more complicated, and made worse by the fact that the armour on many Panthers (about 50%) was of poor quality dut to bad heating and quenching processes. Bear in mind that all notionally on PzKfw IV and Panther were often actually 82-85mm thickness. The notional 60mm plates on the Panther nose were usually 65mm, later up to 75mm.

Panther Ausf D had glacis and nose armour face-hardened, aslo upper and lower hull sides. Nowhere else. Panther Ausf A had a face-hardened glacis (poor quality) and a face-hardened nose plate, and face-hardened upper and lower hull sides, but from 9/43 only homogeneous plate was used. From the sdummer of 1944 about half of the Panthers produced had flawed glacis armour. One other reason apart from poor heat treatment may have been the reliance on carbon as a hardener as non-ferrous metals like nickel and chrome dried up. The Panther Ausf G therefore had only homogeneous plate, and again with a glacis plate that often cracked under impact.

Tiger I armour was of better quality, as it was produced earlier in the war, and appears to have always been homogeneous. Tiger II armour was also only homogeneous, but of inferior quality for the reasons already given. Jagdpanther armour was softer that Panther armour, and so less prone to cracking.

Let me know if you want sources.

[chuckfourth]

I see, very interesting. Thanks very much for this detailed reply. If I might dig around a bit further?
Do you think it might be possible that the 250 and 251 half tracks had face hardened armour? after all the plate thicknesses were the same as the armoured cars. Also Im surprised the early panzer III's wernt face hardened, being the MBT and all.
Ive also heard mention that panzer 1 is face hardened and I would speculate the pz 2 may have been as well?
This site
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/willphelps/Specs-02.htm
disagrees slightly as it mentions that pz 4 had face
hardened side turret armour? (f1 onwards)
I would indeed be keen to have a look at the references as well if thats possible.

Thanks in advance Chuck.

[CharlesM]

I can't find annything that mentions face-hardened armour on halftracks.

As for PzKfw IVs, it seems to depend on sources.

My previous post about German tanks is from Lorrin Rexford Bird and Robert D. Livingstone, World War Two Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, 2nd edition, Overmatch Press, Albany NT and Woodbridge Conn 2001. No ISBN is given.

No two sources seem to agree on the PzKfW IV,and Tom Jentz's Osprey New Vanguard # 39 on the PzKfw IV Ausf. G, H and J is rather vague when he describes the Ausf. G as having face-hardened 50mm frontal armour and 30mm side plates - implying that the turret sides were also FH plates. The earlier Osprey Vanguard # 18 by the late Bryan Perrett mentions FH armour only in the context of British examination of a captured Ausf. E. The applique armour over the hull MG mounting was FH, as were "the port armour covers". The 20 + 20 mm hull sides were not FH.

This lack of consistency is not surprising and not unique to German AFV construction - much would depend on the availability of FH plates during construction. Bear in mind that FH was an expensive exercise as a large number of plates were cracked and had to be discarded, and ultimately the game was not worth the candle, especially as plates became progressively thicker in the gun / armour race.

[cbo]

Pzkfw III Ausf G onwards and IV Ausf F1 onwards had face-hardened frontal armour, except for the glacis which was homogeneous, presumably because the slope was so shallow that the extra hardness was not needed, except for the glacis on the Pzkfw IV Ausf D, which had only this plate hardened, but throughout, rather than just face-hardened. PzKfw III Ausf G onwards and IV Ausf F1 onwards had face-hardened upper and lower hull sides, but not turret sides or on any rear armour plates. The last 50% of PzKfw IV Ausf J had only homogeneous plates.



According to Spielberger: "Begleitwagen Panzerkampfwagen IV", all the 30mm thick frontal armour plates on the Ausf. D were to be facehardened. That would be the front lower hull plate and the front upper hull plate as well as the front turret. Of the additional 30mm armour plate that were bolted on to the front of the Ausf. D in the summer of 1940 the first 100 sets were face-hardened, the reminder homogenous steel.
In the Ausf. E, all 30mm plates were to be facehardened while the thinner plates as well as the 50mm plates were homogenous. It appears that this also applied to the add-on 30mm plates on the upper hull front.
In the Ausf. F, the goal was to have most front and side plates facehardened, which, judging from the British reports used by Bird & Livingston, seems to have been carried out. This reference states that the turet sides were not face-hardened, while Spielbergers book seems to indicate that they were - even the turret hatches were to be face-hardened.
The Ausf. G was basically and Ausf. F with a different gun and it seems that it carried on with the same face-hardened plates. The additional 30mm plates on the hull front were face-hardened according to Bird & Livingston, Speilberger remains somewhat unclear on the matter
The Ausf. H started out as an odd mix, as the earliest vehicles had the same front armour configuration as the Ausf. G (50mm basis with 30mm add-on armour), then gradually started to get 80mm plate on the lower front hull, then the upper front hull. These 80mm plates appear to have been for the most part homogenous plates. Ausf. H production started in May 1943 and the decision to go with 80mm homogenous plates had been made even before that.
This would appear to have left the Ausf. H with 80mm upper and lower front hull homogenous armour, face-hardened side hull armour while the turret would have the front and mantlet face-hardened and possibly also the sides.
With regards to the Ausf. J, it was ordered in June 1944 that starting August 1944, all previosly face-hardened plates should be made in homogenous steel.

cbo

[Cross]

If the British 75mm Mk.V and US 75mm M3 were almost identical, and used the same ammo. Why does the US M3 have PEN 10 and the UK Mk.V only PEN 8 in the game?

In the case of the M72 ammo, according to an earlier post on this thread, the Brits even improved that round, giving it a higher penetration.

I looked at a couple of penetration sources, and they say there was virtually no difference between the M3 and Mk.V. In one case they gave the M3 a much poorer penetration than the Mk.V with APCBC M61 rounds, but I suspect that was an error of some sort.

I know the Mk.V did not have great AP ability, but it should probably be better than it is in SP, and surely should be no different from the M3?

Or am I missing something here?


Cross

[Mobhack]

If the British 75mm Mk.V and US 75mm M3 were almost identical, and used the same ammo. Why does the US M3 have PEN 10 and the UK Mk.V only PEN 8 in the game?

In the case of the M72 ammo, according to an earlier post on this thread, the Brits even improved that round, giving it a higher penetration.

I looked at a couple of penetration sources, and they say there was virtually no difference between the M3 and Mk.V. In one case they gave the M3 a much poorer penetration than the Mk.V with APCBC M61 rounds, but I suspect that was an error of some sort.

I know the Mk.V did not have great AP ability, but it should probably be better than it is in SP, and surely should be no different from the M3?

Or am I missing something here?


Cross

If you think the UK gun should be equal to the US one, then please provide some data to support your case.

I think the AP data for that gun is just one of those things that have been in the game data since the SP1 days, and its never been challenged/evaluated.

My opinion is that since it is the same ammo from the same sized tube, you are probably quite correct.

Cheers
Andy

[Cross]

What I find interesting about the first source, is that they say:

It may be tempting to assume the performance of the British 75mm gun is the same as the USA 75mm Gun M3 as the two weapons used the same ammunition and had the same calibre; however it is a completely different gun and at the very least the difference in calibre length would mean a difference in muzzle velocity and therefore penetration.

But then they go on to give the Mark V a 2mm better penetration!



75mm Mark V and VA (L36.5)

APCBC M61 at 30deg (mv: 618 m/s)
457m : 68mm

75mm M3 and M6 (L40 and M6 L39)

APCBC M61 at 30deg (mv: 619 m/s)
457m : 66mm

914m: 60mm

AP M72 at 30deg (mv: 619 m/s)
457m : 76mm
914m: 63mm

Footnote:
1. Ordnance, QF, 75-mm Mk. V and Mk. VA. Source: Chamberlain, Peter and Ellis, Chris: British and American Tanks of World War II; Gudgin, Peter: Armoured Firepower and Churchill Tank - Vehicle History and Specification. This gun was a bored out 6-pounder chambered to use available 75mm ammunition from the USA. It may be tempting to assume the performance of the British 75mm gun is the same as the USA 75mm Gun M3 as the two weapons used the same ammunition and had the same calibre; however it is a completely different gun and at the very least the difference in calibre length would mean a difference in muzzle velocity and therefore penetration. None of the armour piercing projectiles had any explosive filler. The USA projectiles for the 75mm gun which were used by the British, such as the M61, had the HE filler removed when in British service.

http://www.friweb.hu/gva/weapons/british_guns5.html
http://www.friweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html
---

(All data is displayed in milimeters (mm) vs. RHA / FHA plate @ 30°)

75mm Mark V

APC M62 (mv: 618 m/s)
500: 67/65
1000: 52/49
1500: 40/37

75mm M3

APC M62 (mv: 588 m/s)
500: 64/75
1000: 57/68
1500: 51/61

APC M61 (mv: 617 m/s)
500: 69/67
1000: 61/58
1500: 53/49

AP M72 (mv: 619 m/s)
500: 73/58
1000: 59/45
1500: 47/34

http://www.tarrif.net/
---

75mm V and VA

yds
APC
500: 68
1000: 61
1500: 54

75mm M3

yds
APC
500: 70
1000: 59
1500: 55

75mm V and VA

yds
APCBC
500: 103
1000: 94
1500: 86

75mm M3

meters
APCBC
500: 75.3
1000: 62, 68.5
1500: 48, 55

75mm V and VA

meters
APCBC M61
500: 100
1000: 93
1500: 82

75mm M3

Meters
APCBC M61
500: 100
1000: 93
1500: 82

75mm V and VA

yds
AP M72
500: 76
1000: 63
1500: 51

yds
APC M61
500: 66
1000: 60
1500: 55

meters
APCBC
500: 69.5
1000: 63
1500: 57

75mm M3

Meters
APC M61
500: 70, 68
1000: 60, 59
1500: 55

Meters
AP
500: 76, 70
1000: 63
1500: 51

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/penetration-tables.asp
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/guns/75-mm.asp

---

Bovington Museum, 1975
"Fire and Movement", RAC Tank Museum, Bovington, 1975, pages 22–25. "Penetration v. homogenous armour at 30º, at ranges in yards". The armour is machineable quality.

75mm Mk V

APC
500: 68
1000: 61
1500: 54

APCBC
500: 103
1000: 94
1500: 86

75mm M2 and M3

APC
500: 70
1000: 59
1500: 55

APCBC
500:
1000: 62
1500: 48

---

Chamberlain & Ellis, 1969
"British and American Tanks of World War II", Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, A&AP, 1969, pages 202–207. Ranges in yards, armour type not specified, at 30º.

75mm Mk V, VA

500: 68

75mm M3

500: 70

75mm M2

500: 60


---

Ellis et al, 1962
"Victory in the West, Volume I: The Battle of Normandy", Maj. L F Ellis with Capt G R G Allen, Lt-Col A E Warhurst and ACM Sir James Robb, HMSO, 1962, page 549. "Penetration against homogenous armour plate at 30º angle of attack", ranges in yards.

75mm M3

APCBC
500: 74
1000: 68
1500: 60

perpetuates an error in Ellis by misidentifying the Sherman's 75mm gun as the British Mk V, when it is of course the US M3.

---

Ellis, 1993
"The World War II Databook", John Ellis, Aurum, 1993, page 304. Ranges in yards, armour type and slope not stated.

75mm M3

M61 APCBC
500: 66
1000: 61

---

Featherstone, 1973
"Tank Battles in Miniature: A wargamer's guide to the Western Desert Campaign 1940–1942", Donald Featherstone, Patrick Stevens Ltd, 1973, pages 141–143. "At 50º–90º angle-of-impact gun can penetrate maximum armour thickness of: (in millimetres)", ranges in yards, armour and ammunition types unspecified.

75mm M3

At 50 deg
600: 62
1000: 50

---

Gander & Chamberlain, 1977
Airfix Magazine guide 26, "American Tanks of World War 2", Terry Gander and Peter Chamberlain, Patrick Stevens Ltd, 1977.
Ranges in yards, ammunition type and armour type and slope unspecified.

75mm M3

500: 70

---


Grove, 1976
"World War II Tanks", Eric Grove, Orbis, 1976. Armour type unstated, conventional armour-piercing ammunition unless otherwise stated, ranges in yards.
At 30 deg

75mm M3

500: 70

---
Hunnicut, 1978
"Sherman, A History of the American Medium Tank", R. P. Hunnicutt, Presidio Press, 1978, pages 559–570. Ranges in yards; armour type (FH = Face-hardened, H = Homogenous) as shown at 30º.

75mm M3

APC (H)
500: 66
1000: 60
1500: 55

---

WO 185/178, Tank armament versus armour.
This file is dated 1943.
"Perforation of armour in millimetres":

75mm M3

AP M72 (MQ armour at 30deg)
500: 73
1000: 64
1500: 55

APCBC M61 (MQ armour at 30deg)
500: 76
1000: 69
1500: 58

APCBC M61 (FH armour at 30deg)
500: 75
1000: 67
1500: 52

"Thickness of armour penetrated by 80% of projectiles striking the plate at an angle of 30º to the normal":
(MV 2050 fps)

APCBC M61 (MQ armour at 30deg)
500: 69
1000: 62
1500: 47

APCBC M61 (FH armour at 30deg)
500: 74
1000: 65
1500: 50

A memo from the Ministry of Supply dated 1st April 1943 gives the following figures for "Single homo plate penetration at 30º in mm.":

A memo from the Ministry of Supply dated 1st April 1943 gives the following figures for "Single homo plate penetration at 30º in mm.":

APCBC (MV 2030 fps)
500: 69.5
1000: 63
1500: 57

---

WO 219/2806, Appendix G to SHAEF/16652/GCT/Arty
Dated 11 July 1944. "Perforation of homo at 30º Strike", ranges in yards.

US & Br 75mm

APCBC M61
600: 100
1000: 93
1600: 82

Comments and corrections
The high figures for the 75mm gun match those given for APCBC in the Bovington "Fire and Movement" booklet, but are much more generous than other sources. A memo in this document says there seems "little to choose" between the 75mm and 76mm.

---

WO 291/741, "Comparison of the performance of 75mm and 76mm tank gun ammunition."
"Thickness of homogenous armour plate penetrated at 30angle of attack by APCBC/HE shell." Ranges in yards.

75mm

APCBC
600: 68.5
1000: 63
1600: 55

Comments and corrections
Precision in fractional millimetres seems excessive, and suggests results by interpolation rather than measurement. This document also compares the HE performance of the two guns, concluding that in this respect the 75mm is noticeably superior. It also points out that inferior HE performance can be compensated for by using more of the less effective shell, whereas it is impossible to remedy a deficiency in penetrative performance.---

Zaloga & Sarson, 1993
"Sherman Medium Tank 1942-1945", Steve Zaloga and Peter Sarson, Osprey 1993, pages 10 and 14. Armour type and slope unspecified, ranges in yards.

75mm M3

APC M61
500: 68
1000: 60

---

I took all the cited penetration and recorded them on a spreadsheet for the type of ammo they listed and ranges 500,1000,1500:

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/7391/75mm.png

I put the averages at the bottom (in bold).

Then I changed the results from mm to cm (at the very bottom).

Of the 16 results I have for both weapons, 8 were same, 5 were higher for the Mark V, and 3 were higher for the M3.

Not the most scientific study, but based on the data that's available it shows that the weapons were considered quite similar.

In the game, it could be that the Mk V is a bit underpowered and the M3 a bit overpowered.


Cross

[Cross]

oops just noticed an error on my spreadsheet.

The averages for the Mark V, APC M61 ammo say:

500: 81
1000:63
1500:59

They should be:

500: 84
1000:82
1500:73

but once we get to cm it doesn;t effect the 500 range result, and only pushes up the 1000 and 1500 result by 1


Cross