Jagdpanther

[SmokinLoon]

FWIW, I've had good luck with it, albeit mostly beyond 2,000 yards where they couldn't target a weak point (55 kills this tour, at the cost of 3 deaths, of which 2 were by bombs).  It can kill a Tiger II, and costs less than half as much. 

I do get the impression that AH models cumulative damage to armor, however (is this realistic?).  Thus once the opponent gets the range and your Jagdpanther is pinged, especially if it a large caliber round, you probably should reposition.

nope nope nope nope.  The hit either defeats the armor, or not.  There is no "accumlative" damage.  Stop the madness.

[JimmyD3]

nope nope nope nope.  The hit either defeats the armor, or not.  There is no "accumlative" damage.  Stop the madness.

That's nice to know, I would have suspected that there was accumulative damage.

[pembquist]

nope nope nope nope.  The hit either defeats the armor, or not.  There is no "accumlative" damage.  Stop the madness.

What do the different impact sounds correlate to? Sometimes it sounds like a ricochet, other times like your taking damage but everything still works.

[FBKampfer]

Penetration does not necessarily equal a kill. Or he might have hit a track, which still generates a penetration sound.

[Lusche]

IIRC armor doesn't use hit points, but the individual components (like engine, tracks) do, just like with planes. A hit may penetrate, yet still fail to break a component.

[PR3D4TOR]

Wish AH would follow WT with the hit displays.

[TDeacon]

nope nope nope nope.  The hit either defeats the armor, or not.  There is no "accumlative" damage.  Stop the madness.

Do you recall if HTC has commented on this previously?  It sure seems like this happens.  Of course, it could just be variation in where the shell hits, with certain points being fatal. 

[FBKampfer]

I'd also like to point out that angle of impact matters. If they move, it could change the angle of impact such that they can now penetrate the armor where as they previously could not.

But as countless Tiger II's on concrete will prove, armor does not weaken under heavy fire.

[TDeacon]

<snip>
But as countless Tiger II's on concrete will prove, armor does not weaken under heavy fire.

And, sir, how does this prove your point?  I smoked the turret of a Tiger II on my last Jagdpanther mission, but had to ping him about 5 times before this occured.  Could be weakening, or could be lucky impact point, but we don't really know until HTC comments. 

[FBKampfer]

Because you can slug away at a Tiger II all day with a Panther, which while being hard hitting, cannot penetrate a Tiger II's frontal armor at range.

You can do it with any vehicle that cannot penetrate a Tiger II's armor.

Unless HTC treats the 88 L/71 different from every other gun in the game, which there is no indication of, it must be lucky hits. And if you examine the gun and armor mechanics, this is a plausible explanation.

Why assume an unmentioned more complex system entirely different from anything else in the game is responsible for something easily explained within the mechanics of the rest of the game? It's entirely illogical.

[TDeacon]

<snip>
Why assume an unmentioned more complex system entirely different from anything else in the game is responsible for something easily explained within the mechanics of the rest of the game? It's entirely illogical.

Because that's how it works in the real world, when the shell is large enough relative to the resistance of the armor.  Even without penetration, a hit can damage the armor, making it less resistant to further hits.  One of many historical examples is the cracked barbette on South Dakota, from a non-penetrating Kirishima 14" shell hit, during "The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal".  I also recall encountering similar descriptions of cumulative damage to WWII tank armor, but the details escape me at the moment. 

[FBKampfer]

You're not wrong about the realism of the matter, however your logic is still flawed.

For that to be true, then the 88mm L/71, as well as the armor for the Tiger II and Jagdpanther must be functionally different from the rest of the game, including the vehicles added after Tiger II.

I've been in a Hetzer, and taken some significant number of hits over 27, as I only started counting after it was getting nuts. Point being, the Hetzer does not function similarly to the way you claim the Jagdpanther and Tiger II do with 88mm hits, despite being added WITH the Jagdpanther.


Add to it the fact that HTC said nothing of any such system upon adding the vehicles in question, and the only logical conclusion is that they are functionally identical to the rest of the set, and that the much simpler explanation is in fact the truth.

If you want, we can test this in the DA sometime. The Panther has similar penetration at point blank range to the L/71 at 2000m. I'll up a Panther and bounce shells off your front until either you are convinced, or a miracle happens and I end up killing myself with my own ricochet.

[TDeacon]

You're not wrong about the realism of the matter, however your logic is still flawed.

For that to be true, then the 88mm L/71, as well as the armor for the Tiger II and Jagdpanther must be functionally different from the rest of the game, including the vehicles added after Tiger II.

I've been in a Hetzer, and taken some significant number of hits over 27, as I only started counting after it was getting nuts. Point being, the Hetzer does not function similarly to the way you claim the Jagdpanther and Tiger II do with 88mm hits, despite being added WITH the Jagdpanther.

Add to it the fact that HTC said nothing of any such system upon adding the vehicles in question, and the only logical conclusion is that they are functionally identical to the rest of the set, and that the much simpler explanation is in fact the truth.

<snip>

If you re-read my previous posts, I think you will find that all I am saying is that we don't know for sure how HTC modeled it, unless they tell us.  In any case, I certainly am *NOT* claiming that they model it differently for Tiger II and Jagdpanther.  To recapitulate, my logic is:

a)  It would be realistic to model cumulative armor damage under certain circumstances.  (You apparently agree with this).

b)  My personal experience (based on being hit many thousands of times by virtual AH tank shells over many years of play) *SUGGESTS* that they may be modeling cumulative damage.  However, I concede that there are alternative explanations, such as eventually a shell hitting a weak spot (i.e., "lucky impact point").  (This appears to be where we differ, as you are convinced that they do *NOT* model cumulative, and I in contrast am *NOT SURE*). 

[bangsbox]

you guys do know there is a difference in game to how ricochets and "hit" are treated, right?  ricochets (you hit the tank and the round bounces off) do absolutely nothing to the tank; "hits" weaken amour; damage something; or kill the tank. You can however, get a million legit "hits" on a GV and not kill it (because you are hitting the tread or a none vital component).

[FBKampfer]

you guys do know there is a difference in game to how ricochets and "hit" are treated, right?  ricochets (you hit the tank and the round bounces off) do absolutely nothing to the tank; "hits" weaken amour; damage something; or kill the tank. You can however, get a million legit "hits" on a GV and not kill it (because you are hitting the tread or a none vital component).

I'm very well aware of how the damage model works. I'd assert that my understanding of the vehicle damage model is near absolute.