Author Topic: Suggestion: Immunity to Panzers! (Read 589 times)

Kweassa · « **Reply #30 on:** August 10, 2002, 10:39:47 AM »

I don't exactly think the existence of certain number of people who demand a particular feature is a bad thing.

Remember how the "P-38 interest group" urged and finally received those tougher tail booms? I'm not criticizing them here.

That was a case of a request towards a certain change to strengthen a certain specific ride that they felt something was wrong with, and people generally agreed to it. The P-38s became tougher, but nobody claims them 'invincible'.

How is this case different from the P-38? Did the granted request "mess things up"?

The Panzers would be invincible to MG and 20mm cannons. But there is still plenty of effective and formiddable ways to kill Panzers. There is also an IL-2 and a Hurri2D, and a Yak-9T.

If the P-38, which people deemed had a too weak tail boom, got tougher, why can't a Panzer, which people deem so weak against simple strafing, receive the same thing? Sure, the P-38 didn't exactly receive 'invincibility', but then again, they didn't have inches of steel armour plating at the tail booms. The Panzer does, and the equivalent of the same level of 'strenghthening' should result in virtual immunity - or any level of strengthening so that people can pretty much agree on "yes, those tanks are near impossible to disable with MGs or 20mm cannons".

Toad · « **Reply #31 on:** August 10, 2002, 11:14:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
How is this case different from the P-38?

Simply because the DM was reviewed on the P-38 and it was altered. It wasn't made "immune" to anything.

In the case of the .50's and the tank, there is ample reliable data showing that .50 rounds will penetrate the thinner top armor at certain angles and ranges. To eliminate that would be obviously wrong.

Pyro has said (often) that the ballistic data is available and reliable and also that any Damage Model is always going to be inherently subjective. That's what happened to the P-38; a subjective change was made to the DM.

So, logically, what you'll see is a review/tweak of the subjective DM and not a change in objective ballistic data.

It's always possible that the DM review will result in something pretty close to the "immunity" you desire. Odds are that blanket immunity won't be given.

And now that this subject has been beat to death ...... Adios, Don!

Kweassa · « **Reply #32 on:** August 10, 2002, 12:48:05 PM »

Thus, we complete a full circle as we come back to the point where we started(

)... again...

Something which began with a question about a certain ballistics model which is claimed to model the "possibility" according to the charts, but obvioulsy has no regard to "probability in the historical context".

As people like me, brady, and whole lot of others have asked before and now:

"Howcome an 'accurate' ballistics model produces a result exactly opposite of what it would have been in reality?"

.. and so which went on, with me bringing up the obvious need to "bend", or temporarily "cease" one reality(ballistics against GV armour) to restore another(get rid of the 'strafing kills' from planes unfit for the job forever).

..

Nice talking ta ya Senor!!

I think I'm a bit tired to go on for the next circle!

Shiva · « **Reply #33 on:** August 10, 2002, 03:01:50 PM »

Quote

In the case of the .50's and the tank, there is ample reliable data showing that .50 rounds will penetrate the thinner top armor at certain angles and ranges. To eliminate that would be obviously wrong.

If I remember the diagram that was posted, those 'certain angles and ranges' were near-vertical dives and ranges less than 350 yards -- a combination which gives the attacking aircraft a serious chance to fly through the cumulogranite clouds around the GV.

Planes like the P-47 made a name for themselves attacking resupply convoys and destroying locomotives, which were made of relatively mild steel to contain a uniform pressure from the _inside_, not withstand high-caliber machine-gun fire from the _outside_.

Toad · « **Reply #34 on:** August 10, 2002, 03:16:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
"Howcome an 'accurate' ballistics model produces a result exactly opposite of what it would have been in reality?"

Because, as Pyro has said repeatedly, the damage model is subjective but the ballistics model is not.

Pretty simple, really.

Cya, Don Kweassa

Toad · « **Reply #35 on:** August 10, 2002, 03:31:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shiva

If I remember the diagram that was posted, those 'certain angles and ranges' were near-vertical dives and ranges less than 350 yards --

Looks like about .487 inch penetration or ~ 12mm at the 0 line (90 degree) at ~ 1700 FPS @ 975 Yards to me.

Or at ~2200 FPS @ 500 Yards it'd penetrate .725 inch or ~ 18mm at the 0 line.

Or at 2200 FPS @ 500 Yards it'd penetrate .55 inch or ~14mm at the 20 (70 degree) line.

At least that's how I read the chart.

Rear deck armor is 12mm right?

SKurj · « **Reply #36 on:** August 10, 2002, 04:59:20 PM »

BTW Toad.. those GV's can usually be stopped by 1k eggs on a vh which is less than 10 minutes away(by plane) from the field they are attacking.

The GV's have to kill at least 4-5 hangars to stop defenders

SKurj

Wotan · « **Reply #37 on:** August 10, 2002, 06:10:20 PM »

no strafing tanks occur at 90 degrees or 70 or 60 its lo angle at ranges normally around 1000 yards.

thats the whole point of these threads. If you read umm (you posted a reply in everyone).

m2 has what 870m/s muzzle velocity = 2859f/s (chart shows 2 muzzle velocities 2935f/s for 45" barrel and 2845f/s for 36")

how much energy is lost over 1000 yards?

We need this to estimate striking velocity.......

In my experience in gvs, as limited as it is, the only time I was ever killed by ac was at lo angles and at ranges 1k and beyond. Could be an fe thing I guess but doudt it.

I dont know why folks assume that we are saying 50s should should never effect panzers. I said its not the ballistics that appear to be the "problem".

say at 300mph and diving verticle (0 degree angle) at what range would you feel safe pulling out?

brady · « **Reply #38 on:** August 10, 2002, 08:22:09 PM »

Toad as Wotan has pointed out the thing is, that the realistic envelope for acheaving a penatration is greatly exageranted IN AH, Just look at Holligan's post on the General Forum, he is killing tanks with the 50 cal from the freaking Front, and with the MG 34, clearly this is not right.

I have my tank consistantly disabled from atack's by planes from out side the Effective envelope.

Toad I understand your pashion on this subject, becuase I seam to feal the exact oppset as you do, howeaver it has occured to me that you may just be playing the devals advacot here, for your postings are helping all those who feal somthings neads to be righted a great opertunity to prove their point.

I like the base concept of this thread very much, it would enhance the use of Ground atack planes and their by enhance and diversify gameplay.

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** August 10, 2002, 09:30:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
no strafing tanks occur at 90 degrees or 70 or 60 its lo angle at ranges normally around 1000 yards.

[/b]

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. "no strafing tanks" has me a bit confused.

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
how much energy is lost over 1000 yards?
We need this to estimate striking velocity.......

[/b]

You don't need to estimate at all. It's there in the chart.

The 36" barrel is the aircraft gun. Muzzle Velocity is printed on that line, 2845. To find velocity at any other range, start at the bottom at the range you want, go straight up to the curved 36" line and, at the intercept point go straight left to read the velocity at that range. No estimation; it's published.

Now, once you have the velocity, you just go back right to the Degree lines (0 line is 90 degree incidence, 20 is 70 degrees, etc.). When you intercept the degree line, go straight down and read the penetration thickness.

All the info you need is there on that chart.

I

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
I said its not the ballistics that appear to be the "problem".

[/b]

Then we agree. It's the Damage Model, which Pyro has always said is "subjective". It merely needs an adjustment. If you look back through the many threads Brady put up on this, I've never contradicted that.

Now, do you think Brady sort of got their attention? Perhaps to the point of irritation?

Maybe it's time to sit back and play the game for a while and see what happens.

I know what I do when my kids pester the living hell out of me and I'm busy with something else... even when they do have a point.

Toad · « **Reply #40 on:** August 10, 2002, 09:44:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by brady
the realistic envelope for acheaving a penatration is greatly exageranted IN AH.

[/b]

That's certainly a possibility. The OTHER posibility is that the damage model is not correctly handling the .50 impacts.

You agree that's possible? Good. 'Cause that's probably what they're going to look at FIRST, (given what Pyro has said). When they get to it. On their schedule, not yours.

Quote

Originally posted by brady
Toad I understand your pashion on this subject,

[/b]

I'm not really passionate about it. I really don't care what they do with GV's. When I have ord, I'll drop on 'em. Otherwise, I ignore 'em. If they infest an area and make flying difficult.. I just move.

As has been pointed out, I rarely use them and I've admitted they bore me to tears.

Make 'em immune. Make 'em go downhills at Mach 1. Make 'em able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Change the name to Steel Tigers. Just leave me an ocean area where I can fly an FM2 without them bothering in the least.

What I dont understand is how come you didn't quit posting while you were ahead. One thread in Gameplay or Aircraft and Vehicles would have been plenty. You pointed out a problem, one that's been mentioned before. Fine. Give them a chance to fix it. Maybe the Mission Theater thing has them a bit tied up right now.. ya think?

I'm sure you'll take offense at this, but the multiple threads and the multiple "how long do we have to put up with this BS" comments put me in mind of an unhappy child. It shows a lack or respect.

What you pointed out will be checked in due time. We all know that; these guys are customer oriented.

The question now is do you have the courtesy and patience to wait a bit and see what they do before you post another thread.

brady · « **Reply #41 on:** August 10, 2002, 11:21:01 PM »

Toad why the big pissing match m8t? I think after posting on this issue for a couple years adding a collorfull emotional adjective to a tittle is not unwarented, then Again I am a Forman in the Construction Industery and Being Collorful is prety much a prerequeset, If I offended you with the BS statement I am sory Toad.

Toad one thread was not plenty, their have been dozens of threads on this subject, and untill I posted in the general forum nothing was heard.

Toad why all the fuss if all you do is ignore them any way.

I generaly avoid posting altogether on the generl forum and all realy but the CT forum, and the Aircraft and Vehicals forum, because of all the BS ( woops their I go:) ) that they are filled with, no mater how well intended the thread how well put foth they always degenerate and get off topic.

Toad · « **Reply #42 on:** August 10, 2002, 11:46:15 PM »

As I said in ONE of your other threads in the General, justify your multi-trhead GV campaign any way you like.

It isn't me you have to convince, is it?

Did your Grandma ever tell you that "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"?