ground vehicle armour

[Tank-Ace]

No, and I never said it was. All I'm saying is that because we don't know exactly how they model things (I have some theories, and they fall into line with everything I've observed in-game, but still no more than theories), there is always going to be that chance that its flawed in some rather suprising and basic ways, and that we have only been unaware of it because they do a hell of a job at covering that flaw.

[Karnak]

Of course there is a chance of it being flawed, in fact it is absolutely flawed.  PCs lack the power to do a simulation that is not flawed.  That said, the question is not "Is it flawed or not?" it is "Is it modeled reasonably or does it have fundamental flaws that are game breaking?"  I don't think referencing the flak model is useful in that context and instead comes off as saying "Because the auto flak part of the game is modeled weakly, though for cogent reasons, we must be extra suspicious of the tank armor model."

[Tank-Ace]

You know what I meant Karnak. IIRC, I've already stated its impossible to perfectly re-create everything that goes into a ricochet or non-penetration.


And perhaps thats what you can draw from it. Though I simply meant that "because auto flack is modeled weakly, though for cognent reasons, it would pay to keep in mind that the tank modeling might not be buggy, or even misunderstood to any excessive degree, but rather just weakly modeled for cognent reasons".


I don't know what all would go into a realistic auto-flack model. I have trouble seeing it being more complicated than enlarged auto-ack (which is fired from the gun barrel of the 37mm and 20mm's on field, and is stopped by structures and terrain) that explodes at a set distance, or when in proximity to an aircraft, as opposed to on-contact.

Likewise I don't know all that HTC has put into their armor model. The anomolies we see could come from being either highly detailed, or being rather seriously flawed, and as of yet we have been unable to determine which it is.

[Karnak]

Many years ago, so it may no longer be true, HiTech said that the most complicated part of the code in AH was the tank shell and armor code.

Now, "complicated" does not mean "most accurate", but it does mean that HTC put some real thought and work into it.

[Tank-Ace]

Oh no doubt. On the whole, I haven't found many (well any, actually) complaints. I've also never suffered the rubber shell, random-arse bounces, or paper armor problems so many people claim to. Of course I have a pretty good understanding of the mechanics (or at least I have found a set of rules that can pretty reliably explain things), and so might just have less of the misunderstandings and misconceptions.

[SmokinLoon]

I need to simply start filming and sending the films in so HTC can see what I am talking about with the Panther, I remember a old friend hooter describing this and we tested it out in the Dueling arena, we found that front lower hull was simply to easy to destroy.

Hopefully I can get killed in next few days and post it, I've been meaning too, but been working lately.

Take a squaddie in to the TA's tank town.  That is a good place to test out AP values.  You'll have to use PM's and tune directly to each other since you must be on different teams, but it works. 

FYI: I've tested your lower hull "weak armor" phenomenon multiple times in the TA.  After my Panther was destroyed by a M4/76 at 2800 yards with a shot that connected in the right front track and didnt connect with the hull until about 3/4 the way back (I felt it shouldnt have done any damage at that range), I tested the Panther for bugs extensively over the front hull (upper and lower) and lower side hull and did find discrepancies in which gun can defeat the Panther's armor from what range.  I sent in film to HTC and didn't hear anything back.  There was an update done, iirc, that did address issues with a damage bug in the Panther, but after searching through the incomplete list of "update information" pages I'm not when they did that.

During my testing, I had a Firefly and M4/76 parked side by side from distances of 1600 to 3200 yards away from the Panther and the M4/76 recorded almost double the kills vs the Panther's armor.  Impact locations were nearly identical.  But the M4/76, noticeably inferior to the Firefly's 17 Pdr in AP performance, was able to defeat the Panther easier.  Considering that the 17 Pdr plays second fiddle to only the King Tiger's 88mm in terms of AP ability, it certainly makes a person wonder.        I too feel the Panther has a glitch somewhere in the front armor, both in the lower hull and turret front.

[icepac]

T34 needs slightly better front hull armor in game than is currently.

[Tank-Ace]

T34 needs slightly better front hull armor in game than is currently.

IDK about that, in real life, the guns we most commonly use in here (KwK 40, M1 76mm, Zis-S-53) would have no problem punching through a T-34's armor. It only gives 75mm of protection at LOS thickness.

[bangsbox]

my fav GV moment is when i shot a tiger with a panzer IV from about 400 and the round bounced back at me and i killed myself. it was awesome lol

[icepac]

IDK about that, in real life, the guns we most commonly use in here (KwK 40, M1 76mm, Zis-S-53) would have no problem punching through a T-34's armor. It only gives 75mm of protection at LOS thickness.

The quote from Ferry Porsche I posted earlier concerns the germans inspecting captured T34s to find out why the front hull armor deflected so many shots.

The T34s he investigated had "forged" front hull armor where all other tanks had welded up or cast armor.

None of the other methods even come close to the strength of a single piece of forged steel as compared to a cast or welded up hull.

Here is the quote again from a tank designer who investiged the t34 in person for the specific reason that field reports were showing the T34 front armor was more durable than they had anticipated.

Before long, it came to our notice that the Russians used neither welded up or casting for the front part of the T34.

Examination of captured tanks suggested that the entire front was bent into the right shape.

What puzzled my father (ferdinand porsche) was how the russians were able to take a huge sheet of thick armor plate and bend it around as though it were a biscuit tin.

After sending out inquiries in all directions, we found the russians were apparently using equipment similar in type to a press that simply bent the metal as required.

One of the engineers who worked for my father on the panzer commission happened to remember that many years before the russans had bought a german rolling mill capable of bending very thick steel which could bend a smooth curve resulting in a front end that required no welding to attain the wanted dimensions.

It was not a question of rolling a sheet of metal between two rollers and bending it by merely turning the rollers but rather the securing of the sheet at both ends and putting extremely heavy vertical pressure in the middle and bending it into the required curve.

A better description of this machine would be some kind of gigantic press of enormous power.
 

[Tank-Ace]

I stand by what I said. The T-34 was good in 1941, but as soon as the first Panzer IV F2 rolled off the assembly lines, its days were numbered. The thing to remember is that the T-34 built its reputation when the best German gun was the 5,0cm KwK 38 L/60, which was relativly rare at the the start of Barbarossa with the L/42 being more common.



At long range, yes the armor could bounce. With a deflection shot, the armor could bounce. Head on, the armor could bounce with pure dumb luck. But the armor generally wouldn't stop a high velocity 75m round hitting from head on.

[Butcher]

Take a squaddie in to the TA's tank town.  That is a good place to test out AP values.  You'll have to use PM's and tune directly to each other since you must be on different teams, but it works. 

FYI: I've tested your lower hull "weak armor" phenomenon multiple times in the TA.  After my Panther was destroyed by a M4/76 at 2800 yards with a shot that connected in the right front track and didnt connect with the hull until about 3/4 the way back (I felt it shouldnt have done any damage at that range), I tested the Panther for bugs extensively over the front hull (upper and lower) and lower side hull and did find discrepancies in which gun can defeat the Panther's armor from what range.  I sent in film to HTC and didn't hear anything back.  There was an update done, iirc, that did address issues with a damage bug in the Panther, but after searching through the incomplete list of "update information" pages I'm not when they did that.

During my testing, I had a Firefly and M4/76 parked side by side from distances of 1600 to 3200 yards away from the Panther and the M4/76 recorded almost double the kills vs the Panther's armor.  Impact locations were nearly identical.  But the M4/76, noticeably inferior to the Firefly's 17 Pdr in AP performance, was able to defeat the Panther easier.  Considering that the 17 Pdr plays second fiddle to only the King Tiger's 88mm in terms of AP ability, it certainly makes a person wonder.        I too feel the Panther has a glitch somewhere in the front armor, both in the lower hull and turret front.

I've tested it with Hooter, we both were in Panthers, then M4(76) against Panthers - in the dueling arena (before and after the patch to fix the M4(76), we found the panther's lower hull way to vulnerable, even to something puny like a Panzer F L/43.
Only way i've been able to combat this is hide those nose behind a hill, otherwise any random lucky shot can knock a panther out.

strangely enough, I found a Tiger vs Panther to actually have the armor WORK in its favor, nailed a panther 3 times under 1400 yards - front lower nose and nothing happened, TWCBOB was the Panther driver, eventually I got tired of shooting the front lower hull to see no damage, first shot aiming at the turret -  I hit the turret and he was smoking. I checked the film while back to see if i was going nuts or hitting the Glacias plates, but instead I was nailing the lower hull every time, no ricochet just a "Dead shot".

[SmokinLoon]

I've tested it with Hooter, we both were in Panthers, then M4(76) against Panthers - in the dueling arena (before and after the patch to fix the M4(76), we found the panther's lower hull way to vulnerable, even to something puny like a Panzer F L/43.
Only way i've been able to combat this is hide those nose behind a hill, otherwise any random lucky shot can knock a panther out.

strangely enough, I found a Tiger vs Panther to actually have the armor WORK in its favor, nailed a panther 3 times under 1400 yards - front lower nose and nothing happened, TWCBOB was the Panther driver, eventually I got tired of shooting the front lower hull to see no damage, first shot aiming at the turret -  I hit the turret and he was smoking. I checked the film while back to see if i was going nuts or hitting the Glacias plates, but instead I was nailing the lower hull every time, no ricochet just a "Dead shot".

ding ding.  I think you may be on to something.      By all means send in the film to HTC.  Send in still shots of the tracer round passing through the armor.  Outside of the King Tiger, if there is a tank that should be able to shrug off incoming rounds to its frontal armor it is the Panther THEN the Tiger.  Yes, the Tiger has thicker armor (in hull, same armor in mantlet/turret front) but the chance of deflection is much higher with the Panther.  At 210mm of armor on the front of the turret between the mantlet and the turret armor itself, I fail to see how any but the King Tiger and a point blank shot from a Firefly or Panther can defeat the Tiger or Panther with a shot to turret front. 

Regarding the T34, I think if people believe it is "too weak", they need to do some testing of the armor just as I have suggested.  They will find that the T34 holds up very well when the parameters are controlled and understood.   

[Tank-Ace]

Loon, I talked to Pyro about that. He says that there is only small areas where both the turret armor and the gun mantle overlap. For the most part, its either turret armor or gun mantle, but not both.