Author Topic: Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....  (Read 3870 times)

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #105 on: March 26, 2002, 08:32:35 AM »
I have a  movie, made yesterday, of myself in a panzer, getting strafed to death by a spit.  Oh and a p38 tried to hit me a few times.  How many passes? 3 spit passes and I was back in the tower.  If you want the movie Hitech, I can arrange it. As the title says, what a load of BS.  The only good thing about the encounter is he took my engine first.  Oh and I did take a wing off of a p38 in one pass with my 303 pintle.  Didnt hit him much either.

We dont model bad engines in nikis, so I dont think we should be modeling crew behavior or missing plates in gvs.

This really is a joke.

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #106 on: March 26, 2002, 08:35:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by ergRTC

This really is a joke.


Actually, in my case it was a joke. Damn, shoulda used the [joke] tags.

-Sikboy
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #107 on: March 26, 2002, 08:40:34 AM »
I know sikboy.  Your sarcasm is not hard to miss. ;)

Offline illo

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #108 on: March 26, 2002, 07:17:44 PM »
Calm down ppl. :D
I'm sure HTC is looking on this.

Offline Hortlund

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4690
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #109 on: March 27, 2002, 06:12:11 AM »
I'm not so sure this problem is very easy to fix. I think (and please correct me if I'm wrong here) that the current damage model is something like this: Every piece of ordinance, and every bullet has some kind of damage value. Lets assume that a .50 cal bullet has 1 in damage value. Then every target, or target surfance has some kind of damage resistance (cant come up with a better word). When it comes to aircraft, every part of the plane has its own damage resistance. When enough damage points is inflicted upon a target surface, that surface breaks (and we get to see a wing fall off etc).

I suspect there is some kind of randomizer in there somewhere too, so that that .50 cal bullet sometimes inflicts 2 damage points, and sometimes 1/2 damage points.

Now, if I'm correct in my guessings here, that would mean that everything can be destroyed by everything. If you shoot long enough on a Hangar with the 7.92 rear MG on a 110C4, eventually the hangar will be destroyed. It will take alot of time, because the Hangar can absorb the equivalent of 3k lbs worth of bombs, but eventually you will be able to shoot the hangar to pieces. Every single 7.92mm bullet will make .25 points worth of damage to the target or something like that. Then it only becomes a question of time and ammo before the hangar is destroyed.  

Over to our PzIV, like every other target in the game, each target surface on the pz has a damage resistance value. And since the panzer is armored, I suspect that this is reflected either by giving it a high damage resistance value, or by reducing incoming damage values by some factor.

The same should apply here. If you shoot enough 7.92mm bullets on the frontal armor of the Pz, eventually it will be destroyed.

I havent had time to test this theory yet (because I just came up with it, and Im at work). But if I'm correct, or at least close to the truth, then the whole .50 cals taking out armor-issue would need a complete rewrite of the damage model to fix.

As I pointed out earlier, it is not realistic to ask for a fully realistic damage model. The number of calculations that would be required for a realistic damage model in tank to tank combat is astounding. And besides, it should not really be neccessary. What we want is a realistic simulation, at least that is what I want. And 90% of the calculations that would be required in a realistic damage model for tank combat can be reduced to a couple of randomizers within certain variables to achieve as good a result as any.

Offline ergRTC

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
      • http://bio2.elmira.edu/DMS/index.pl?table=content&faculty=1&page=1
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #110 on: March 27, 2002, 09:17:43 AM »
I think you are right hortlund, but I have seen field ack 'bounce' off the front of my tank and richochet (how the hell do you spell that!). So there must be some kind of ability to model immunity.

Last night I took out a shore gun with the 40mm on the back of my pt boat.

Only took about 50 shells.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #111 on: March 27, 2002, 09:35:29 AM »
hahem ... yet another Candide question :)

If I figured right the penetration are based on the impact of one single shell/bullet on a steel plate at given range.


But what happend if it's a "burst"(stream ?) of bullet hit the steel plate ?

Offline MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #112 on: March 27, 2002, 09:52:10 AM »
Easy, the first bullets will act as added armour for the second ones and so on :D

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #113 on: March 27, 2002, 10:05:17 AM »
Dohhhh !!!


Didn't thought of that this way !


So they are just trying to immobilise tank by increasing their weight ? ;)


It was so obvious and I missed it :D

Offline illo

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 374

Offline Sarge1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
      • http://www.geocities.com/soundpge/index.html
50's and tanks
« Reply #115 on: March 30, 2002, 05:47:29 PM »
I saw on the history channel the P47 shooting at tanks and have bullets ricochet off of ground hitting the underneath of tank where there is very little protection.. with its 8 50"s and knocking out tank.. so i guess it is possible

Offline Seeker

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2653
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #116 on: March 30, 2002, 06:16:51 PM »
Good link Illo; but it, and it's response, only illustrate further what has already been discussed on these boards:

Allied air superiority post D-day actually resulted in relativly mínor physical destructiobn of Axis resources.

Allied Air superority was, nontheless, paralysing to armour movement.

I'd be very interestèd in hearing about the Eastern Front, an area I'm too ignorant of. What was the claimed effect of the oft asked for additional load outs for the 190 ?

Did the Axis find air power an effective tool in armour supression?

Are there Soviet analysis of their losses to air power?

How did the Panzer fare against the IL-2?

Offline illo

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: 50's and tanks
« Reply #117 on: March 30, 2002, 07:44:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sarge1
I saw on the history channel the P47 shooting at tanks and have bullets ricochet off of ground hitting the underneath of tank where there is very little protection.. with its 8 50"s and knocking out tank.. so i guess it is possible

Did you read anything above? Research has shown this didn't happen. No single incident found. How can you confirm you saw KO from bottom hit? How tanks was KOd? Explosion? or??

Offline illo

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #118 on: March 30, 2002, 07:47:32 PM »
Quote
I'd be very interestèd in hearing about the Eastern Front, an area I'm too ignorant of. What was the claimed effect of the oft asked for additional load outs for the 190 ?

Did the Axis find air power an effective tool in armour supression?

Are there Soviet analysis of their losses to air power?

How did the Panzer fare against the IL-2?

Yup me too. It's kind of funny how little we know of WW2s main front.

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....
« Reply #119 on: March 30, 2002, 08:29:13 PM »
Its difficult to argue historical in a thread like this.  Hortlund's post is a pretty good example of why.

Historically, in the environment those tanks were in, that information could be 100% accurate.

Now translate that to what we see in the main arena.  There is no air defenses for the straffing aircraft to worry about... so they can take prolonged shots from virtually any angle.

All ground vehicles are exposed from virtually every side at all times.  There is no digging into a hillsided to protect the weak areas.

Those two things alone virtually invalidate comparisons between WWII numbers and what we could expect in the MA.

That said, what would increasing GV strength accomplish in the MA?  Right now, bases are virtually defenseless (AI) against GVs... especially Panzers.  My main concern with hardening GVs would be the likelyhood of seeing them used as runway vulch platforms much more often.  There just isn't another use for them in the game right now.

Perhaps a better idea would be to come up with a use for GVs that doesn't involve spawning them at enemy airbases.  Introduce some kind of real land war vs the base centric setup right now.  A system were ground has to be held or it is lost.  If you don't have that... GVs will always be the eye-candy they are right now.

AKDejaVu