Tanks in ROHOS

[Cpt-Praxius]

sry error with editing. plz delete this double post

Should be able to delete yourself if you hit the edit button. Down to the bottom right there should be a delete feature right beside the "Go Advanced" button and make sure you select to delete icon in the new section that opens up further below and confirm.

But to touch a bit on what you just said, many ideas were taken from the community in the past which made Ost which we're all playing for the most part today. The difference is that now a days it would seem all the good ideas are gone and we're left with these nit picky little trinket things people want to add in the game, not because they know that it will improve game play for everybody, but mainly because they like the idea for themselves and seem to refuse to look at the bigger picture and any problems that may arise or if it's really worth all the work for mentioned idea.

The idea of bullet penitration and proper MG rotation, along with these various class restrictions, head bobs, and the sort have popped up over the years all the way back from the Mod days. The Bullet penetration and MG axis rotation things were difficult to do back then due to what they were working with I believe, so those were never really bad ideas.... just ideas that couldn't be done at the time or there wasn't enough time to get them in.

But when it comes to ideas towards improving the game, tweaking issues and bugs, and such.... there's not much new coming out besides ideas that already have been rejected in one for or another, or simply make no sense to have in. All that's left are ideas nabbed from other games and to leech off their features.... I don't see anymore "Original" ideas coming out that would help make RO stand out on it's own, thus my previous statement still stands.

Heck back in the mod forums, people talked about having damaged tracks and being able to go out and repair them.... even though in real life this would take a long time and wouldn't be practical to the gameplay.... not to mention you'd just be a sitting duck the whole time.

I'd just like to see people use their brains before bringing up an idea, rather then just justifying their idea with "Well this game has it, and it's popular, so it must work."

My idea of damaged protective glass may not be that big of a difference to overall gameplay and chances are would rarely occur in a game for it to be useful, but it's not in any other game that I'm aware of like RO, it's realistic that you can't really refute because it did happen, but if most people don't like the idea and think it wouldn't be useful for the overall game play, then fine... say so and move on.

I'm not here to try and force my ideas onto people and make them agree with me, if you don't you don't, let's move onto something else. Meanwhile others will come on here and spam their ideas until they lose all meaning and logic moreso then before, then create threads linking those threads and spam it some more, as if it will change anybody's view. It's just annoying, that's all.

 

[The_Emperor]

I see Praxius. I can understand your hatred and that you're heavily annoyed. Concerning my ideas I've always thought before writing to have good quality ideas posted here only. Sure it might be a bit harsh somtimes when I go here and smash a new idea on the discussion table. Sorry for this.

Still I try to do best with my ideas and although I get slapped here and there for "stupid" ideas. I can agree that my attack dog idea doesn't fit for this scenery at least not for Stalingrad.

I've yet battled with RedGuardist and Lemon about the so much hated K

 

[TT33]

From what I seen in the animation in the T34, your head moves to the left viewport in the hatch, not a scope. While I imagine there was a scope, it doesn't appear to be used based on the animation provided.

That view-port is supposed to be a periscope.Only the earliest T-34 actually had a viewport (the model 1940 with the 76.2mm L-11 gun) the fact it does not look like a periscope is a model error and not related to the real vehicle.

what about the idea of applying damage to the glass area to obstruct the driver's view in the next RO (if there are tanks)?

The problem is that tripwire did not model the closing of the armored shutter in front of the viewport or the episcopes as well as periscopes most tanks carried on the first Ro game which would not allow the glass to be damaged in combat areas. Assuming the second game is similar tanks with the view-port would be unrealistically disadvantaged in combat situations if the glass were damageable.

How quick was it to change this glass in the middle of the battle?
...If it forces the driver to pop their head out to see where they're going or be stuck listening to the tank commander on where to go, then so much the better.... it's probably make drivers a bit more cautious and listen to their crew more often.

First tanks carried a very thick multilayered glass block the Tiger for example had was over 6 layers of Panzer-glass a dinky 7.62 round won't do much to that damage (this includes cracks) also they were only replaceable from the inside of the vehicle (there is no way to do it from the outside). The tanks typically carried something like 4-6 replacements.

And a rifle wouldn't make much of a scratch on metal armour, but we're talking about WWII quality layered laminate glass here being hit by a 7.62mm bullet.....

A rifleman being useless vs a tank is not what is being discussed it has nothing to do with vehicles it is simply an infantry fact.
On a tank training video they made reference that only concentrated heavy machine gun fire could cause visibility issues against a vision-port/periscopes..... moot point however as I stated in combat the shutter was closed and the episcopes were used.....


here is a another T-34 pic minus the welded on plates......

 

[[5GTA] Juan]

It depends on what you understand as Stalingrad...
What the Chuikov men where doing among the ruins was getting time for the biggest encirclement in history, Operation Uranus, what circled the 6th Army inside the city gettin the "Kessel".
Inside the city was a tank factorythat was in production for some weeks...
In operation Uranus and the attemppts to break the encirclement were also big armour battles...

 

[Capt.Cool]

for the record:
german Panzers had bulletproof glass that you can always change from inside the tank.
But of course bullets from a MG-fire can destroy your vision (it wont break, but it would scratch)

It was common that soviet MGs shot at the commanders vision hatches so the tank is blind for at least a few seconds.
(the replacement of a new glass in the turret cuppola takes about 10-15 seconds.)

If a glass is hit it should stay scratched for 10 seconds, and then being replaced automatically. How does that sound?
(I think we dont need a animation for that?)

But I am sure the SOVIET tanks in the stalingrad battle did not have bulletproof glass, especially not the ones being produced at the Stalingrad tractor factory - these tanks didnt even have sights for the mainguns!!!
They drove out of the factory right into the battle...

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

Thanks for the info guys, you learn something new everyday.

But one thing I'd like to share is that there is and never was such a thing as "bullet proof" glass, but only "Bullet Resistant" because in order to make the glass "Bullet Proof" it's required to be really thick, which doesn't seem practical.

Not to Wiki, but:

"Bulletproof glass is a colloquial term for glass that is particularly resistant to being penetrated when struck by bullets. Since manufacturing glass of usable thicknesses capable of fully stopping most bullets cannot currently be done, the industry generally refers to it as bullet-resistant glass instead."

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_glass[/URL]

Even today we can't make bullet proof glass, so I doubt back in WWII the glass was any tougher then what we use today.... probably even less.

And just a couple of seconds of glass damage would be nice. The idea of having the glass damaged for 10 seconds and then automatically replaced sound good to me, even if the driver can't be attacked at the same time.... it'll keep them busy while troops can flee or send in some Anti Tank guys after them without being able to properly see what's going on for a few seconds.

Of course the MG and Cannon operator could still see perfectly fine and gun you down..... but for the people who take a tank on their own, or even if they have a team with them, this little bit of distraction can make all the difference.

 

[RedGuardist]

for the record:
german Panzers had bulletproof glass that you can always change from inside the tank.
But of course bullets from a MG-fire can destroy your vision (it wont break, but it would scratch)

It was common that soviet MGs shot at the commanders vision hatches so the tank is blind for at least a few seconds.
(the replacement of a new glass in the turret cuppola takes about 10-15 seconds.)

Yep. For the record, this matter was already debated through earlier in this thread, if you care to read the previous posts.

If a glass is hit it should stay scratched for 10 seconds, and then being replaced automatically. How does that sound?
(I think we dont need a animation for that?)

If the damaging of armored glass is featured in game, I think that the animations should be a must. Othervice it would feel pretty dumb. But since animations are timetaking to produce, maybe "damaging armored glass"-feature doesn

 

[LionbI4]

Still I try to do best with my ideas and although I get slapped here and there for "stupid" ideas.

See Praxius and other forum members I really try to do my best to assist in making RO2 a real top game. So please don't slap me for that.

Most of your ideas, The_Emperor are interesting and nice.
Some of them has some points allowing to exploit it, but in general they are still nice.
Good job.

 

[PETERPANs]

Lol I want that for tanks in RO HOS

YouTube - Clay Pigeon Shooting w/ Tank

 

[VariousNames]

In either case, they are then vulnerable and the rifleman can stand a bit of a chance, so the driver has to determine if it's smart to get out and risk being shot, open the hatch and risk being shot, or try and replace the glass and risk being shot..... or try and guess where the heck the enemy is while almost blind.

And a rifle wouldn't make much of a scratch on metal armour, but we're talking about WWII quality layered laminate glass here being hit by a 7.62mm bullet..... I think damage to the glass would be quite significant, considering that a 7.62 round can do plenty of damage to today's quality of layered laminate protective glass.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/IDET2007_bulletproof_glass_armor.jpg[url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/IDET2007_bulletproof_glass_armor.jpg[/URL]

^ Image of bullet resistant glass being hit by 7.62mm rounds. (Large image)

If a round hit the viewports of any of the tanks, you'd be lucky to see anything afterwards.

This would be far more useful in game then some of the other ideas floating around here in the forums. Even if it only takes the driver a few seconds to replace the glass, that's a few second the other guy has to run.

Those are only 7.62x39mm rounds, roughly equal to the STG-44 cartridge.

The 7.62x54mm cartridge used in Russian rifles obviously travels at a higher velocity, several hundred feet per second more with a resultant kinetic energy quite a lot greater than the assault rifle cartridge.

 

[VariousNames]

In that image the bullet fired is 7,62x39 API BZ. The thickness of glass is 55,6mm. I do not know how this bullet compares to those fired by MN and K98 rifles or the thickness and strength levels of protective glass in tanks of WWII so I cannot pass a judgment here. I only think it is most likely that drivers were protected from these firearms, otherwise what is the point of designing them in the first place. Either way periscopes ensured absolute safety.

Wikipedia is the friend of ignorant folk like us. It is dependent upon the load of ammunition and also dependent on the quality of ammunition, and considering propellant is better now and that was a modern 7.62x39mm cartridge you have to take this with a grain of salt...

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x54mmR[/URL]

Averaging out the various loads (this is a really inaccurate comparison just FYI, but it is a good ballpark), you're looking at around 3600 Joules of kinetic energy at the muzzle. By contrast, the 7.62x39mm round averages roughly 2000J of kinetic energy at the muzzle.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x39mm[/URL]

Now, the muzzle velocity of a particular cartridge is dependent not only upon the acceleration rate but also the length of time that the projectile is accelerating. The projectile only accelerates while it is in the barrel, which means barrel length is a partial determinant of velocity, which is directly proportional to kinetic energy. In other words, the longer the barrel the greater the resultant kinetic energy everything else held constant.

So if the 7.62x39mm cartridge was fired out of a shorter barrel it would also have its resultant kinetic energy affected....generally those numbers on Wiki are cited from tests with constant length barrels you probably can't expect in the average military rifle they may have used in the test image Praxius showed us, probably something like an AK-47.

Sorry, there's really not any need for this kind of depth but basically what I'm trying to say is that the round used in the image to shatter the bullet resistant glass has significantly less punch than the rounds used in a Mosin Nagant or the even more powerful Kar98k.

 

[Capt.Cool]

If the damaging of armored glass is featured in game, I think that the animations should be a must. But since animations are timetaking to produce, maybe "damaging armored glass"-feature doesn

 

[PETERPANs]

Is it war of details?

 

[RedGuardist]

Those are only 7.62x39mm rounds, roughly equal to the STG-44 cartridge.

Well, it was a 7,62x39 AP round. That increases the penetration power of the bullet.

In WWII infantry very seldom used AP rounds with rifles or MGs. Bullets were lead core FMJ bullets.

Can you explain why the animation for changing a glass is a must?!?
I think the "damaging armored glass" would be a good feature, and without animation it would be also a feature which is easy to do!
Do you really need to see your avatars hand to change the glass? Why?
Or wouldn

 

[TT33]

But one thing I'd like to share is that there is and never was such a thing as "bullet proof" glass, but only "Bullet Resistant" because in order to make the glass "Bullet Proof" it's required to be really thick, which doesn't seem practical.

The Glass on typically 90 mm+ thick.... Also wikipedia is not a good source as its way too general and dependent on public opinion (especially on polarized topics).

If the damaging of armored glass is featured in game, I think that the animations should be a must. Othervice it would feel pretty dumb. But since animations are timetaking to produce, maybe "damaging armored glass"-feature doesn

 

[Capt.Cool]

I believe this was still pretty rare, since a tank without gunsight is practically useless. Firing the main gun or coaxial MG without sight is virtually impossible and useless thing to do. At least if you want to hit anything.

I read that they aimed looking through the barrel.

 

[RedGuardist]

I read that they aimed looking through the barrel.

I would assume, that aiming from the breech is seriously a hard thing to do in a tank.

I

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

The Glass on typically 90 mm+ thick.... Also wikipedia is not a good source as its way too general and dependent on public opinion (especially on polarized topics).

Wiki isn't absolute, but unless someone can actually refute what is said with more factual information, I'll stick by it.

Regardless, the glass used in WWII tanks was not 100% impervious to small arms fire...... they may not become destroyed and break apart, but they would get damaged and that damage would obstruct your view.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[Zetsumei]

I think that if you have 90mm panzerglass that the inpact point from a rifle will become a white dot. But everything around will still mostly be ok to look through with maybe a few fracture lines.

I'm all for showing the effects of bullets hitting the panzerglass, but its worth looking into what the exact effect is when hit with a rifle.

 

[baff]

A very enjoyable thread this one.
Thanks for posting.

Here's a little something I think has not been adressed yet.

Soldiers riding on tanks.