• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Red Orchestra's Tiger x real life Tiger

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#61
[RO]Wilsonam said:
@ Jack - the research referred to was conducted late war and in the 1940s - not using "modern" rounds. Super-heating did actually occur in the war, with the plate melting at the point of impact, along with the round itself (partially). That is why I said "something" of a fallacy - the results were early indications of those effects; over-match clearly also occurs - but the overall combination of the mechanisms was unclear. The Soviets didn't discover that their BC rounds were "normalising" until after the war - lucky piece of design! So - there are a whole number of effects when 1940s projectiles impact 1940s armour. These include over-match (and under-match) and shattering of armour or projectile; it also includes super-heating of the round and/or armour under the right conditions.

The spare rounds in T-34's were in the hull floor - there is no turret basket, as an aside. Even more of a brute to get at!
Click to expand...



Wilson, with respect, I think you have misinterpreted some of these ideas, or maybe I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.


Heating of the plate and shot ocurred, this is obvious. Any time you have energy exchange you have heat.

However, what we need to recognize is that the heating of the plate at the point of impact is a result of the forces of penetration, it doesn't cause or aid penetration.

So, I fail to see how saying something like the shot fails to cause superheating of the plate at impact makes any sense. Something like T/d governs whether a shell penetrates or not, any heat exchange following through on the impact is an after effect, unless we are talking about modern AP penetrators.

So, I still stand by my contention that "superheating" was not what was ocurring in WWII armor penetrations in this sense. There is of course friction and heat exchange, but the "superheating" that occurrs with modern AP rounds is more what is usually meant. The level of energy exchange with modern AP shot is so much that the crystalline structure of the plate breaks down completely at impact point, and ablation takes place. Without ablation, the heat is simply an after effect of the energy exchange between the shot and plate.


So, I think a lot of what we are doing here is semantics. Heat is put off in WWII penetrations, but this is obvious. "Superheating" is usually taken to mean the higher curve of energy exchange as per modern AP penetrators, hence why I began talking originally of such rounds...as I figured you could be speaking of nothing else!

In short: heat exists as a factor in WWII armor penetration calculations, but it does not exist as a determinant of penetration, as you originally implied.




BTW, I noticed you mentioned "normalising," I hope this can eventually be implemented. The normalising effects of blunt-nosed capped shell, and how this interacts with face-hardened versus homogenous plate, are also key factors.





PS: Oh yes I forgot the T-34 has no proper basket :eek: Now that I remember the commander's bucket seat stayed stationary as the turret turned...one more reason to hamper T-34 crew operation I guess.
 
Upvote 0
#62
lol, I have read about a situation where a 122mm round hit at a 80 degree angle to the upper side of the sloped hull on the panther, and "bounced," but the heat was enough to cause the fuel in the sponson's to burst into flame
:-D
But that is still not NEARLY hot enough to make metal's behave like liquids
 
Upvote 0
#67
[RO]Wilsonam said:
The commander's seat was fixed in the turret... the loader didn't get one in the early models...
Click to expand...

Where did I say the loader got a seat :confused:?


Operation was still impeded though, because this forced the commander/gunner to adopt a squatting position, with all the related complications arising that I am sure you are aware of.


PS: Regarding the original topic, I noticed you said:
...this is also why the modern trend is to create LONGER penetrators, not BROADER :) More energy applied, over the same surface area.
Click to expand...




This reminded me of the common misconception people have regarding modern APDS.

In short, the length of the penetrator actually has more to do with gyroscopic and areodynamic forces than it does with penetrative ones.


Using a dense material like tungsten or depleted uranium already concentrates mass into a small area. The problem that was shown in WWII with APCR was that velocity loss occurrs relatively quickly though with these types of rounds. The solution was of course APDS.


In recent times, it was found that for larger APDS rounds fired at hyper velocities, to have staying power over distance you need to reduce the ballistic surface, which is why the projectiles are made small in caliber, i.e. it is an aerodynamic consideration.

This is not done to put more mass into a smaller space, because as another poster has mentioned in this thread already, stacking your mass behind the impact point in length versus in width also carries disadvantages.

Namely, you have a longer length to push through the plate, with the front continually absorbing impact forces and degrading the overall energy of the penetrator over time. In other words, making a penetrator longer versus broader carries major disadvantages as well.


Secondly, we must consider the gyroscopic forces at play. For a multitude of reasons explained by physics, the ratio between the length of the penetrator versus its caliber cannot exceed 5:1 (without using fins) or else it will have gyroscopic instability and go flying off at a random direction. So there is a catch .22 here.

If you increase length and decrease caliber, you may think you are concentrating more energy in a given space. But actually, you increase the workload for the round to penetrate fully through the plate, while also potentially making the round so unstable it cannot be accurately fired.

Eventually then, you reach a point on the curve to where longer does not get more results than broader! You will either be pushing too great a length through the plate, and/or the round will be unstable in flight (even with APFSDS)




Penetrators were made longer to give better areodynamic performance, and when the point was reached where this length:caliber ratio was approaching or exceeding 5:1, then fins were added. But, you can only stack so much of your mass in terms of length. Eventually, you come back to a point where you must spread this mass in terms of larger caliber, because doing so only in length alone becomes counter-productive and/or impractable.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#68
[RO]Wilsonam said:
EDIT: Yes, the Tiger was becoming obsolete on the Eastern Front from 1944 on. It was helped by the poor quality/training of many Soviet crews and the experience of the Tiger crews. Its reputation is best known from US/British opponents who only had 76mm guns (on the whole) and had a torrid time dealing with Tigers. Also, there are NO maps from us showing the Tiger in its 1942/43 heyday!
Click to expand...

Well while we are at that part.
then Show us a 42-43 map then?

or give us one of the 478 (sometinglike that... or was it 778? :S) King tigers...
 
Upvote 0
#69
Ok guys i'd advise you to try the modified version of ro-orel ro-orel 88vs 76 i think i've seen it on debuke the soviets have no T 85's just T 76's and su's and kv's while the germans get one or two tigers plus stugs panzers give it a go i havent tried using the tiger on the map since im a soviet man but it certainly is hard to kill:) you really have to outflank it, if it was supported properly on that map it would be almost impossible to kill luckly the other team werent that orgainised.
 
Upvote 0
#71
I think the main reason the Tiger suffers is due to how much angle of impact matters ingame. Angling tanks being by far the most important aspect of tanking in RO. The Tiger lacks inbuilt slope so if you fail to angle the tank you will die, very quickly. So you angle the tank for combat. But this leads to the problem of the very slow turret traverse.

Irl they used to just turn the tank to face the enemy instead of the turret. if you attempt this ingame your armour wont be sloped and you'll quickly be despatched. To conclude.. I know angle of impact mattered a lot irl, but I really still think it's overdone in game. It seems to be the only thing that matters.
 
Upvote 0
#73
I just got got back from playing Orel 88vs76.


Only one other guy was on the server, so we did a test. I got in a T-34/76 and he in a Tiger.



I was unable to get any frontal penetrations to the Tiger starting at about 300 meters on in. However, I drove up to within 100 meters of him and aimed for the glacis, where I got a one shot kill. The shot penetrated and the ammo area must have been hit because he exploded.


I did not try any flank shots or rear, he was also non-angled relative to me, and sitting still.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#77
^^I agree, I have been suspecting that the game does not simulate pentetration like a simulator. It just has values of this and that and checks that in order to see if it penetrates.

For example, I could mod in the P1500 and it could be penetrated by a PZ3, even if I had set the armor values. I think you have to code in that stuff. I think the game works like this:
Tiger side-armor: 6
T-34/76 cannon power: 7
T-34/76 cannon penetrates Tigers side-armor.

In other words, I don't think it's anything like in Combat Mission or tank sims.
 
Upvote 0
#79
The problem Justin is this goes back to what I was originally saying. You tend to get inconsistencies when you just use arbitrary values.



If you use calculations based upon the actual physics, there shouldn't be any inconsistencies because the laws of physics will not allow them to occur in the first place.



If the armor penetrations are actually governed by physics calculations which take into account the capabilities of the 76mm shell fired at a certain velocity and range and angle, then why would you get a penetration from a certain distance that did not happen in real life? If it did not happen in real life, then calculations which reflect the real world data should not allow it to happen in a virtual world either.


However, if you used arbitrary values of "gun power" and "armor strength," then you can see where this could lead to highly unlikely situations happening on a consistent basis within the game world.
 
Upvote 0
#80
^^

To be honest, I do not expect the armor penetration values to be as good as Combat Missions' or a simulators. It's just that Tripwire said time and time again that they were using all kinds of fancy calculations and that we would see realistic penetration and all that.

RO:OST is already a technically impressive game, but we wargamers can never have enough. The thing about this game, is that it's the only realistic/technical combined arms WW2 game that will ever be created(Unless Tripwire makes others).

Who do you think will make another RO? EA? IW? Nope. Only Tripwire.

This is the only chance we have of seeing realistic WW2 combat, and the community would like to see that. It has already gone a long way, more than any other WW2 game ever made. I am incredibly thankful towards Tripwire for creating such an amazing game, I only hope they keep polishing it.

I would be very happy if we indeed had accurate calculations...
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu