• 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/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Release ArmoredBeasts 2.06 beta (update)

Amizaur

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 18, 2006
275
3
0
43
Gdansk, Poland
Just visiting...

Calculating angled armor to equivalent vertical armor protection is not that simple as pure cosine. In most cases the angled armor resist better than on FatPartizan's picture. Not only the projectile path trough the armor is longer because of the angle, as on the picture (the "pure cosine" result, or "normalized" thickness, this one is used for penetration of HEAT warheads) but also pointed projectile has tendency to ricochet and is less effective in digging trough the armor. So when at 60deg pure cosine predicts 2x armor increase (90mm), the actual protection increase can be up to 3 times better than armor thickness (135mm).

The most commonly used formula is protection = thickness * 1/cos(angle)^K where K is usually something bewteen 1.4 and 1.6.

Example of US table for angled penetration from WW2:



This table would predict multipler of 2.5 for 60deg and resulting T-34 armor of 112.5mm

But this is again more complicated and depends also on projectile diameter, projectile shape, armor quality and hardness. The table above assumes one projectile shape, and projectile caliber similar to armor thickness.

Sometimes when large caliber blunt projectile hits angled armor, armor may resist worse than pure cosine predicts (in case of T-34 hit by large caliber - armor less than 90mm).

In other cases when small diameter sharp projectile hits highly angled armor, the armor resist better than pure cosine predicts (more than 90mm) and sometimes even better than the formla I gave (better than 120-130mm) - this would be in case of small sub-caliber projectile hitting T-34 glacis. The resulting armor could be easily over 120mm or even much more.

So, for 50mm PzIII projectiles, T-34 45mm 60deg plate could resist like 100-120mm of vertical armor, which makes any penetration questionable if flat plate was hit, but penetrations are possible if joints, welds, base of tow hooks or base of driver hatch are hit - angle can be close to 0deg then and thicknes is just 45mm. For 50mm subcaliber projectiles (even smaller caliber and more pointy) the 45mm 60deg plate can act like something like 200mm vertical and be impossible to penetrate - just ricochet. PzIII kills on T-34 are unlikely to be made with penetrating front hull plate. Either they were turret penetrations, lucky "weak point" penetrations of front hull from very close, or side/rear kills. Germans didn't need superior tanks and penetration advantage to win with T-34s at this stage of war (Barbarossa), Even if they had problems penetrating frontally, they could win anyway with superior tactics. crew training and experience.

On the other hand for 88mm APC projectile, with diameter twice as large as armor thickness, the 45mm 60deg plate of poor quality can resist only like 70-80mm of vertical armor sometimes, and good quality plate as 80-90mm of vertical. If hit by huge 152mm AP projectile, thin 45mm plate would just break in pieces regardles of it's high angle and "theoretical" 113mm resistance :)

All values from the head, just examples.

So... highly sloped armor (like T-34 front hull) has NO single "armor value", in reality it depends on what strikes it. As in current version of AB I had to chose one value, I chosed for most commonly hitting it 75-88mm projectile so around 80mm of protection. And, "accidetally" this value gives also historically correct penetration ranges for all 75 and 88mm German guns in game ;), and not too bad for 50mm gun (with exeption of APCR which should ricochet and not penerate) so it's a good compromise IMO.

Not sure if I explained this before... I hope this makes T-34 front hull "45mm" armor issue a bit more clear, why such value was chosen and not 45mm, 57mm (how this one was calculated ?), 90mm or any other. I hope case is closed now. Now I return to the cave I'm hiding...
 
Last edited:

TT33

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 2, 2007
571
159
0
"45mm" armor issue a bit more clear, why such value was chosen and not 45mm, 57mm (how this one was calculated ?), 90mm or any other. I hope case is closed now. Now I return to the cave I'm hiding...
Great stuff m8 but this does not really explain how the short 75mm Kwk L/24 was able to penetrate the front of the T-34 at ranges a bit under 200 yards with a normal AP rounds there are alot of testimonials/complaints about this by German tankers. Anyway I still have a hard time believing that it could not penetrate itself (76.2mm f-34) in combat kind of puts a damper on the Germans that used the T-34 in combat. You'd think you'd see a crossover like on the KV-1 for instance which was modified to use the 75mm kwk L43 by the GD. In anycase Im still compiling information on the subject what I found so far is very interresting I will post more on ths subject once I have thoughly looked through it.
 
Last edited:

TT33

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 2, 2007
571
159
0
[RO said:
Wilsonam]
Dream on :) As I think you've discovered, getting to the "correct" answer is a bit of a nightmare. Then trying to persuade everyone else is a nightmare^n !
His figures are very close to where they should be which can not be said about other tanking systems and secondly I am not really complaining about AB as a whole actually I've gone miles out of my way to promote it anywhere and everywhere because I believe Amizaur did an incredible and detailed job. I would very much like Ro's tank system to be replaced standard by Amizaur's work, however no matter how good something is if they is an issue or error it should be brought up and addressed! Mindlessly agreeing with something despite the errors is not how most individuals behave but rather sheep.
 
Last edited:

FatPartizan

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 11, 2006
370
0
0
T-34 Faq .

T-34 Faq .

This magic? No.
It had bugs? Yes It had one million bugs.

Some problems managed to be solved, others are not .
Bugs.

1. Too short resource of the engine. In the beginning of war of 100-120 hours . Problem it was possible to solve partially by the end of war. 160 180 hours.
2. Too thin armor . The forward part of the tank is overloaded. The tower is shifted forward. Too weak suspension bracket. Only five supporting points aboard .A problem to solve it is impossible. Only 45 mm.
3. Primitive transmission. At T-34 greater problems at turns + too small resource.
4. Visibility in the beginning of war simply awfully. This problem has been solved.
5. Quality of manufacture. Awful. A underside of mass production. In 1941 the Kharkov tractor factory has been evacuated. Manufacture of tanks has begun at other factories, they had no experience and соотвествующего the equipment. The problem is partially solved.
6. Quality of the armor . The USSR had hard deficiency of nonferrous metals. Deliveries from the USA solved a problem only partially. To 1944 situation has changed . Quality armor has improved.
7. For a T-34 there is no silencer. Very bad design of tracks, they rattle. It is not able to creep.
8. Early T-34 had no separate position for the commander. The problem is solved, for T-34/85.

APCR 76.2




APCR 85 mm.





Then I shall continue. When I shall have time.:)
 
Last edited:

Amizaur

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 18, 2006
275
3
0
43
Gdansk, Poland
I'm really not sure if T-34 front hull armor (or more precisely, front 45mm/60deg plate) could be penetrated by 75L24 gun at all. Simply can't remember such reports (which doesn't imply that they not exist, just I didn't hear that). I would think it's a bit strange that projectile with penetration potential of about 60mm of vertical plate, could penetrate 45mm plate sloped at incredible 60deg. Some phenomena would have to occur to explain that. I suspec that T-34 as a whole could be penetrated, but not necessarily the front upper plate. Turret of early T-34s could be penetrated from very close by L24, also front hull if hit a weak point (hatch base... some german manual even said to aim in the place where T-34 front upper and lower plates meets, because there is small 0deg area :) but it's really an last hope advice... Also 75mm HEAT projectiles could penetrate T-34 front plate... if the fuse worked at such sloped armor (have no idea).

About T-34 being able to penetrate itself - the T-34 had a bit different kind of ammo - blunt nosed, which worked really good against sloped armor. With such ammo the ~80mm vertical penetration potential could be possibly enough to penetrate 45mm/60deg. Again have no idea if it worked, didn't hear about T-34 vs T-34 duels (76mm).

German T-34s (Pz34) against Russian T-34 is still another matter, because Germans made their own ammo to 76mm guns (IIRC projectile was basically 75mm Pzgr. with thicker driving bands) fired with German charge, can't remember at what V0, but vertical penetration was quite bit higher than with Russian ammo (Pz34 82mm at 30deg at 100m, T-34 had about same but for vertical plate, not 30deg). So the performance would be identical like 75L43 + ...few hunded meters... (where projetile velocity is identical). Hmmm performance of Pz34 firing german ammo would be like 75L43 plus ~1000m so.... barely enough to reliable penetrate T-34 glacis... up to about 200m. Rough estimate :).

Anyway, in all cases of PzIVF1 or T-34 vs T-34, better aim for turret or hit something mounted on front glacis, not smooth plate. Or front lower hull. Or turret ring. Or get it from the side, which is best and safest option, or better yet from the rear ;).

But even if there is no chances to penetrate i theory, it can still happen sometimes (magic bullet, hitting a flaw in armor, hitting a weld or something). Very small chance, but wonders do happen at war :) This also works in the other direction - a shot can sometimes fail where there should be sure penetration... but modeling this in a game is probably pointless, as players would found it as just a bug for sure ;P



Page from KwK39 50L60 manual, showing where to aim and from what range to kill a T-34. Doesn't give much chances agains front hull plates ;) please notice it advices to aim at the edge where the plates meet, in early T-34s it was a curved edge and chance for ~0deg angle hit. Black area - possible penetration, shaded area - damage or potential penetration, white area - no penetration possible, PZ - panzergrenade, HK - APCR, worth noting is that the ranges are possibly calculated including extra 30deg side angle. Unfortunately I don't have such tables for 75L24 gun. But 50L60 seem to be not very effective against T-34 front, isn't it ? (note - apcr ammo, even though it have very good vertical armor penetration, also is not effective against T-34 front plate according to this manual. it's even worse againt T-34 hull side than AP - AP 400m, APCR 350m)

EDIT: about why T-34 front hull in AB is currently 80mm: all I wrote above was written from my memory, which is not perfect, especially when I didn't touch some AB stuff for quite a time. I checked my calculations now and I see that the value I meaned was 90mm, not 80mm - and also about 90mm as frontal protection was the value that gave most realistic penetration ranges against German guns,frontally. IIRC now then I reduced it to 80mm for two reasons - first that T-34 armor was too strong at angle, as current ballistic calcs are too simple yet to account for some important factors "on the fly", so angled T-34 was too strong for PzIVs, second reason would be to allow PzIII AP penetrations are very close range. Current model doesn't use weak points or even front lower plate, so the only way to allow this was to reduce T-34 armor or increase PzIII penetration. I chosed the first, for some reason.
The calculated value for good armor quality is about 90mm, most accurate results (frontally) would be for 85mm, but the 80mm gave better overall performance, although it could boost the frontal penetration range against T-34 bit too much (for PZIV and Stug). It's not perfect and doesn't fit to all reports, but best can be achieved with current AB code. If I add better code, this will improve.
 
Last edited:

TT33

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 2, 2007
571
159
0
Amizaur said:
I'm really not sure if T-34 front hull armor (or more precisely, front 45mm/60deg plate) could be penetrated by 75L24 gun at all. Simply can't remember such reports (which doesn't imply that they not exist, just I didn't hear that). I would think it's a bit strange that projectile with penetration potential of about 60mm of vertical plate, could penetrate 45mm plate sloped at incredible 60deg
Happy New year! Well consider reverse slope, overmatch, normalization ,spalling, seam hits, turret ring,etc.
In the 1940 invasion of France the 75mm L/24's APC shot did not penetrate the Char Bis but it heavily damaged the vehicle when repeatedly hit and managed in various occasions to take the vehicle out of action considering some of the items above it is possible ( Char Bis was much thicker than the T-34). Here is an excerpt from an interview with Rolf Hertenstein the interview was conducted by Robert Mulcahy reguarding the 75mm L/24:


This was of course the standard 75mm L/24 APC round and not the "HEAT" projectile which could easily defeat the T-34's armor at distance.

The T-34's armor also seems to have varying thicknesses. I've seen lots of number quoted other than the standard "45mm". from the lower end at 38 mm & 40mm to 47mm. In Panther vs T-34. Ukraine 1943 I found the following value for the frontal armor

(if you wish a more complete pic just ask)
I also found the value of 45mm sloped at 60 degrees in Germany's Panther tank: The quest for combat supremacy by Thomas L.Jentz but I need to re-locate this book.


Lastly Here is a pic of a T-34/85 at the Kummersdorf proving ground in Germany marked as 45mm . Also notice the hatch of the T-34 is 75mm thick strongest part of the front rather than a weak spot at least armor resistance wise it was known that the lid could break off even with non-penetrating shots.

Amizaur said:
Page from KwK39 50L60 manual
Wapruf and manuals error on the side of caution and assume that the target has German quality steel and also assume shots at the target are taken from a 30 degree angle (I think you stated this already). There was a German 1942-43 test done to determine if the 50 mm L/60was adequate vs the T-34 and the 50mm L/60 shells were fired at plates of differing thicknesses some as thick as 50mm @ 60 degrees with a fair bit of shots penetrating shots at perpendicular angles with in combat distance. Panzertruppen makes some reference to the L/60 being capable of dealing with the T-34 as do many accounts and findings/tests. The soviets themselves for example when studying T-34s that were recovered from combat (tanks shot to pieces in combat) determined that the 50mm L/60 was very dangerous to the T-34 and produced most of penetrations through the hull and turret and some partial penetrations on nearly every side of of the tank including the glacis. The point to this is that the soviet tankers didn't need to worry about the shot 50mm L/42 and 37mm's bouncing off their armor but not at the 50mm L/60 that gun posed them a very real threat.

[PM me if you want the text for either of those findings.]


Amizaur said:
German T-34s (Pz34) against Russian T-34 is still another matter, because Germans made their own ammo to 76mm guns (IIRC projectile was basically 75mm Pzgr. with thicker driving bands)
Nice, so the penetration would lay somewhere between an 76mm F-34 and a 75mm KwK 40 L/48 ballsitic performance would of course be better also due to the higher quality German APCBC round. Ty for that tid bit of info m8.

I find it very difficult to find much on German Panzer 747 (r) modifications other than overly-generalized ones for example I know of the existence of the "R-3" version with turret side skirts but I have found no pics or other information about it are there any sources you would like to share? At best I find negative reviews of whither it was cost effective or not for the Germans to keep the T-34 in operation due to their poor cross country (surprisingly the T-34 was not as reliable as we are led to believe) performance as well as other draw backs.
 
Last edited:

Amizaur

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 18, 2006
275
3
0
43
Gdansk, Poland
Guys :)

First, you can be sure I know what is the real slope of T-34 hull :D I ahev very nice early T-34 (the one modeled in RO) on a monument few kilometers from my house, and many times played around it as a kid, also today I sometims visit it :)
For sure you can tell by just looking at the picture if it's 30deg or 60deg, the difference between those two is rather visible ;)

All this 30/60 misunderstanding is from one very simple reason - the value depends on how do you measure it. You can get 60deg from vertical (as I measure, I'm just used to, vertical is 0deg for me) or yo can get 30deg if you measure from horizontal. Different nations measued in different way, for Germans it was 30deg, for Russians it was 60deg, and it was same angle. Also in books you can get different mesuring standards. This is less problem with armor (you can find a picture of the tank and check visually) but bigger problem is that projectile penetration data at angle is given also for "30" or "60" deg and it can be the same or different, sometimes it's hard to tell what angle really it was...

Now about 75L24 against T-34 front upper hull. The first picture you gave, if I understand it correctly, says that to destroy T-34 the short barreled 50mm PzIII (50L42) had to close for about 200yards or closer. But it doesn say anything if they destroyed it by hitting the front hull, or maybe turret, or maybe front lower hull :). He just says he could destroy T-34 at such range, but doesn't say HOW he did it and what part of T-34 he penetrated. He even don't say it was frontally, he could say about destroying T-34 only from 200yds from the side just as well ;P ok just kidding, he would mention that if he ment the side.
We can get to conclusion, from this text, that the weakest part of T-34 front was possible to (reliably) penetrate by 50L42 (or other gun, if I misinterpreted the tank he fought in), from under 200m. Talking probably about frontal engagement. And we know that the T-34 had many weaker areas than front hull, in fact front upper hull was the most resistant part of the whole tank (in T-34/76).

edit: I read this again, more carefully. Now I believe that his tank was in fact short barreled PzIV (he mentions 75mm HC ammo). He says they had to get within 200m to get any chance for penetration ! - so to be able to penetrate any part of T-34. This could be very possibly the turret front, would fit very well here. He also says that 75mm HC (HEAT) that were introduced, were not perfect but it was only thing that worked against T-34s. So AP didn't work (at all, or only from very close - see the part about 200m to get any chance). The HC would work from any range just as good.

I wish he said if the HC ammo fused correctly on T-34 front plate - it could be problem because of the slope - or it worked only against less sloped parts. IF it detonated on impact, the front plate would be exactly 90mm for the plasma yet, not sure what was vertical penetration of early 75mm Gr. 38 HL shaped charge shells, and what type they used (Gr. 38 HL or Gr. 38 HL/A). The first would have no chance and the second, well, also is little short (just found it penetrated 75mm at 30deg, this means 40mm at 60deg, or 80mm vertical for HEAT)... still little low, although HEAT penetration in WW2 was very unreliable and varied from shot to shot... more often happened to be less than advertised...

About German (or other) manuals -- you are absolutely right here :). They are not reliable source of information, at least for penetration ranges. Usually even the conditions of firing are misinterpreted (WaPruf calculations include extra 30deg side angle usually, as I mentioned), intentionally decreased their performance (better safe than sorry - "manual says I could kill it from that range, but I couldn't...") and overmodelled enemy performance (for "our" shots we want to quote "from this range you can be sure to destroy enemy reliably", for enemy shots you want to quote "from this range the enemy starts to become dangerous") and so on. The ranges are not based on actual reports, but on calculations done on a paper in Germany, calculations of questionable quality (they don't make any corrections for armor quality, and use simple angled armor formulas), and those calculations are made basing on intelligence data of course - sometimes it's measutring of captured vehicle, sometimes it's spy reports or guesses - as in case of "T-34B - estimate" :). So, I totally agree those charts are not good source of reliable info at all :) I gave it to illustrate my point (and the picture is good illustration) and to show the "weak zones" of T-34 - where they are located, and that Germans were aware about that and instructed gunners where to aim for best effect. Be sure the quoted tanker read this manual too, and relied on it to some extend, before he collected first-hand cnowledge about T-34s. The penetration ranges are probably off, especially if shooting frontally without additional side angle. I believe this picture is good illustration of what 75L24 could do to T-34 from the front, as we were talking about 75mm. As for 50L60 penetration range against T-34 front hull, I do not know, but believe it was rather short, if at all.

A shell of calliber X rarely is able to penetrate X thickness of armor sloped at 60deg (or 30deg in your convention) at velocity under 1000m/s, usually it's much less. I mean AP/APC projectiles.
45mm is 90% of the 50mm.
Only two US (90mm) AP (not APBC) fired at similar speeds were able to reliably penetrate 83mm/55deg Panther hull at any range IIRC. So penetration of armor of thickness around 90-95% of calibre at 55-60deg is problematic at best.

But we want compare to German ammo (design, quality, hardness) rather. So 75mm Panther projectile, fired at higher speed (!) most probably could not penetrate 75mm of 60deg sloped armor at all, or even 67mm. Even faster 88mm APBC, fired at 1000m/s (so much faster than 50L60), either could not penetrate good quality 80mm plate at 60deg, or only barely. In British test, using British test plate (usually less resistant than German by substantial amount) they found 85mm@55deg plate (Panther front hull) possible to penetrate from about 600m (projectile speed needed for penetration 944m/s so still faster than Panther's at muzzle, and much faster than 50L60). It's not clear for me if a real Panther as the target would result in penetration, or ricochets from even closer ranges. Probably depends on armor quality of the vehicle in question.

T-34 hull has 5deg greater slope (and it makes a difference at so high angles) and was made from hard steel which resisted very well against projectiles of similar calibre. So it seem - technically - unlikely, than 50mm projectile at under around 800m/s could penetrate 90% of it's caliber sloped at 60deg.

That said, I have no idea if it actually happened - everything is possible, some not known factors could take part in penetrations... US T33 and M77 pure AP projectiles were doing similar task (scaled up) but they were AP and they were doing it against much softer armor plates.

So only if I knew that 50L60 reliably penetrated front T-34 plate, I would think about what could possibly cause such strange (for me) result :)




P.S. This is a quote from... somwhere (have no idea, but there is a google after all) that I just found in my "database" (collection of various materials and sources and quotes from sources):

"According to a May 1942 report quoted in Jentz: "Panzertruppen" vol. I p. 231:

5cm KwK 38 L/42
PzGr (APC?) can penetrate T34 lower hull side between 5th and 6th roadwheel at 150 meters. PzGr 40 does the same at 200 meters. PzGr 40 can also penetrate the turret side at 100 meters. Hits on the drivers vision slots may also penetrate.

5cm KwK 39 L/60
PzGr (APC?) can penetrate hull and turret side up to 400 meters and the area around the drivers hatch at up to 300 meters with consecutive hits.

The possibility of damaging the gun, track and jamming the turret is also mentioned.

This report does not express much confidence in the 5cm guns, stressing the need to use several Panzer IIIs to lure the T34 into a trap where it would be vulnerable to the 5cm guns.

Another report from July 1942, same source p. 243 states that the L/60 firing PzGr 38 (APCBC) could penetrate T34 lower hull side at up to 500 meters, upper hull and turret sides up to 400 meters and turret front up to 400 meters. It could not penetrate the hull front, but would sometimes knock the drivers hatch off. Same report speaks with some confidence about the L/60 and the 7,5cm KwK 40 L/43 now being able to deal with the T34 and eliminate the inferiority of German tanks against it.

My impression is, that it is really the Panzer IV Ausf. G(F2) and the 7,5cm KwK 40 that makes the difference in the latter report, the increased confidence caused by this weapon sort of rubbing off on the L/60"
Interesting to read it, AFTER all the theoretical estimates and considerations were done :)

Regards

Amizaur
 
Last edited:

Kwiatek

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 10, 2008
2
0
0
Hi!
I think there is some bug in 2.07 beta Armored Beasts with close distance penetration. At medium to high distance penetration looks good but when fight is very close strange things happened. There was a lot online situations when at close distance 100m or 50m was needed 2 or 3 hits to destroy enemy tanks. I ususally play tanks like T-34 85mm, PIV, Stalin and Panter. Many people not only me had these bug. That was mostly T34 85mm vs PIV or Panter but also Stalin vs PIV etc. Exacly if i was in T34 85mm and shoting to Panter from 50m or 100m i also could hang 1-2 direct hit. Yesterday when i was in Stalin i got PIV at 50m of front of me. We shoot to each other and alive after 1 hits. 2nd hit destroy my IS2 beacues i got long time loading. And it was doesnt metter if i hit in turent or hull front or side - mostyl all tanks could hand 1 hit from these close distance.
Other hand when i played in IS2 i could destroy PIV and even damaged Panter from HE shells from long distance 900-1000m. My antitank shells was gone so i shoting from HE. Mostly i could destroyed PIVs with 1 hit from 1000m. I killed in these way 5 or 6 PIV and 1 damged Panter.

I think these things should be checked and fixed.
 

nolimit_369

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 1, 2008
7
0
0
Ok so i downloaded and installed Armored Beasts 2.065 (complete)+Tank Range
to my server and its running great but there is only one small problem...We cant shoot the main turret of any tank :/

Please help me (i need AB SOO BADD lol)
 

jeffduquette

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2008
339
1
0
Hi!
I think there is some bug in 2.07 beta Armored Beasts with close distance penetration. At medium to high distance penetration looks good but when fight is very close strange things happened. There was a lot online situations when at close distance 100m or 50m was needed 2 or 3 hits to destroy enemy tanks. I ususally play tanks like T-34 85mm, PIV, Stalin and Panter. Many people not only me had these bug. That was mostly T34 85mm vs PIV or Panter but also Stalin vs PIV etc. Exacly if i was in T34 85mm and shoting to Panter from 50m or 100m i also could hang 1-2 direct hit. Yesterday when i was in Stalin i got PIV at 50m of front of me. We shoot to each other and alive after 1 hits. 2nd hit destroy my IS2 beacues i got long time loading. And it was doesnt metter if i hit in turent or hull front or side - mostyl all tanks could hand 1 hit from these close distance.
Other hand when i played in IS2 i could destroy PIV and even damaged Panter from HE shells from long distance 900-1000m. My antitank shells was gone so i shoting from HE. Mostly i could destroyed PIVs with 1 hit from 1000m. I killed in these way 5 or 6 PIV and 1 damged Panter.

I think these things should be checked and fixed.
Interesting. I have noticed the same thing, but thought perhaps it was either my imagination, or that I was having runs of bad luck. I have had at least two incidents recently in which I was firing at a PzKwIV with an IS2 at ranges of less than 400m -- very little side angle to the shots -- perhaps less than 15-degrees. I seemed to be hitting center of mass of the PzKwIV, yet it was taking me three rounds to kill the panzer.

I seemed to have better luck, or better shot effect, when I increased my range setting -- even for very short ranges. Aiming low to compensate for the higher range set. But this may also have been my imagination, as I haven't repeated the test enough to know for certain if there is something to this or not. Range set having something to do with shot effect would be very odd.

Is the intent here to try and model higher velocity impact and shatter potential? If it is, I'd question the shatter potential for the sort of t/d ratio associated with 122mm AP vs a MkIV at the compunded impact obliquities being considered.
 
Last edited:

jeffduquette

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2008
339
1
0
No - we didn't get into the whole "shatter gap" controversy. Or are you talking about AB?
Hi Alan:

I guess I was referring to the AB-Mod. But I dunno’ if this is a common occurrence in both the AB-Mod and the stock version RO.

As I say, I am not claiming to have looked at this scientifically -- I mean I haven't set up a test map to see if what I was seeing was simply bad luck on my part, or if it represents some sort of quirk in the game code that results in this odd projectile effect at close range. I was reacting to the previous poster who seemed to be observing the same thing I have seen during game play. But I have in the past shrugged this sort of thing off as simply being an unlucky streak.


Please excuse my vulgarity, but a 122mm, 25Kg AP projectile striking center of mass and with little side angle on the front of a PzKw IV from 500-meters or less should knock the panzers proverbial dick in the dirt 99% of the time.

Perhaps this is a play balance thing?

Best Regards
Jeff
 
Last edited:

jeffduquette

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2008
339
1
0
Thnx Alan:

I noticed the same thing again last night while playing the Debrecen Map (excellent map by the way -- as is the Debrecen Arcadya map. Thanks very much to whoever created these maps!).

Anyway -- almost the exact same circumstances. I was in the cap zone of the SW Field with an IS-2. This time a Stug wondered into my gunsight. Again it took three hits to kill the Stug. Range was less than 500m. I think one of my hits may have been a glancing blow -- so perhaps it doesn't count. But one of my hits was pretty close to center of mass on the rear of the assault gun -- didn't even succeed in stalling the Stugs engine. I reckon in reality the 25Kg projectile would have carried the engine through the firewall and into the crew compartment. The stug than turned and fired at me while I was reloading -- he missed (nervous I guess). My third shot blew-up the Stug -- square frontal hit close to center of mass.

Of course I was wining about this to my team via the intercom. One of the regulars whom I know to be a good shooter said he has noticed the same thing with the IS2. It is an excellent one shot killer at medium to long range in the game, but starts getting weird at close range.

I guess I should stop belly aching and go ahead and set-up a test scenario to see if this really does happen consistently or not.

Best Regards
Jeff
 

dr. strangelove

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 20, 2006
262
128
0
55
Thnx Alan:

I noticed the same thing again last night while playing the Debrecen Map (excellent map by the way -- as is the Debrecen Arcadya map. Thanks very much to whoever created these maps!).

Anyway -- almost the exact same circumstances. I was in the cap zone of the SW Field with an IS-2. This time a Stug wondered into my gunsight. Again it took three hits to kill the Stug. Range was less than 500m. I think one of my hits may have been a glancing blow -- so perhaps it doesn't count. But one of my hits was pretty close to center of mass on the rear of the assault gun -- didn't even succeed in stalling the Stugs engine. I reckon in reality the 25Kg projectile would have carried the engine through the firewall and into the crew compartment. The stug than turned and fired at me while I was reloading -- he missed (nervous I guess). My third shot blew-up the Stug -- square frontal hit close to center of mass.

Of course I was wining about this to my team via the intercom. One of the regulars whom I know to be a good shooter said he has noticed the same thing with the IS2. It is an excellent one shot killer at medium to long range in the game, but starts getting weird at close range.

I guess I should stop belly aching and go ahead and set-up a test scenario to see if this really does happen consistently or not.

Best Regards
Jeff
Jeff,

This MOD is significantly flawed. I had the same problems/issues playing in any of the Russian tanks.

It's very frustrating, so, I no longer play it!
 

jeffduquette

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2008
339
1
0
Have you tried AB 2.08?
I only play online on the AB tank server -- FKMOD or some such thing. I presume the AB version used on this server is kept up to date, but I wouldn't sware to it.

-- just checked, and the FKMOD server setting says "ArmoredBeasts208Beta" So I guess yes, I have tried 2.08, and my above comments should be considered specific to AB 2.08.
 

jeffduquette

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2008
339
1
0
Jeff,

This MOD is significantly flawed. I had the same problems/issues playing in any of the Russian tanks.

It's very frustrating, so, I no longer play it!
Thanks Dr. Strangelove.


I actually think there are a lot of cool tweaks to the AB-Mod, and I enjoy playing it. The short range shot effect thing is irksome. However, I wanna’ make sure it’s actually a problem with the Mod, rather a problem of my understanding of some of the nuances of the ballistic model in the AB-Mod.

Best Regards
Jeff
 
Last edited: