Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: jamdive on March 05, 2012, 06:45:42 PM
-
Just how does the game percieve the armour on each tank and what is considered a kill shot? Why does a sherman take 3 hits in the side from a panther and not die? Why does a panther take 4 hits in the side and not die but from the same distance kills another panter head on with one shot? I think the modeling is shot from the hip and not fair for all players. You should at lease have close to the same result when using the same tank against other tanks, not 20 richochets and you get one shot. Whats the deal? I should be able to repeat the same shot over and over again on the same tank and not have drastically different results. If I shoot a deer with a 30-06 in the heart it dies, not die one time then gallop away on a different occation. The modeling for the ground vehicles is hoaky at best.
-
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-316024.html
-
The modeling for the ground vehicles is hoaky at best.
been sayin that since I started
-
LOL wtf was that?!
-
Just how does the game percieve the armour on each tank and what is considered a kill shot? Why does a sherman take 3 hits in the side from a panther and not die? Why does a panther take 4 hits in the side and not die but from the same distance kills another panter head on with one shot? I think the modeling is shot from the hip and not fair for all players. You should at lease have close to the same result when using the same tank against other tanks, not 20 richochets and you get one shot. Whats the deal? I should be able to repeat the same shot over and over again on the same tank and not have drastically different results. If I shoot a deer with a 30-06 in the heart it dies, not die one time then gallop away on a different occation. The modeling for the ground vehicles is hoaky at best.
I've seen far to many variables lately, I have a high end PC on extremely stable internet - I know where I place my shots and sometimes I'm bewildered what I Kill and what kills me.
Had a Panther destroyed at over 2k yards from the front by a Panzer F - lower front hull shot. <--showed a few documents that show most late war tanks couldn't even penetrate this under 1k let alone the so common practice in aces high - mainly because of the angle of attack, only if someone was climbing a hill can I understand this being vulnerable - however I have yet to see a Panther knocked out from the lower front hull in hundreds of war photos, if it was so vulnerable why is there no documents from the american/british and russians explaining to aim for it when facing a panther? clearly states to flank the tank for any chance for a kill shot.
At 1.2k a Panther shot to the rear of a T34 will deflected 2 in 10 rounds, I know my aim and I nail tanks at 3-4k away like candy, why would 8 be kill shots and 2 either do absolutely no damage or bounce off?
I'm starting to believe the more times I kill someone, the more of an anomoly I will get eventually (Turret side hit and no damage, tank keeps going) or for example Front hull hit on a T34/85 at 800 yards in a panther - NO DAMAGE, he fires HVAP and I die.
I'm also poised the further OUT I shoot at someone, the more of a chance I get a kill shot then some varied "miss" - which shouldn't it be the other way around? Long range shots should have a higher chance for hitting trackers then hull or turrets, instead I seem to nail tanks quite fine at 3k out rather then 1k out.
-
I'm starting to believe the more times I kill someone, the more of an anomoly I will get eventually (Turret side hit and no damage, tank keeps going) or for example Front hull hit on a T34/85 at 800 yards in a panther - NO DAMAGE, he fires HVAP and I die.
Somehting very simmilar happened to me about 2 months ago. Seen a t34 coming towards me, about 1500 out, i shot his turret, he absorbed my round, no damage. Shot his frontal hull 4 times when he was getting closer, 2 ricochets, 2 absorbtions, no damage. Then when he got under 1000, his first HVAP got my panthers frontal armor.
Yes, was IraqVet. Yes, he was riding on it for like 2 hours, how lame i am.
Very simmilar thing happened yesterday. TWCCABOB's t34 vs my panther. I shot the upper side of his hull 2 times (not his track), rectangular impact not counting the sloping of the hull, 2 absorbtions, no damage, his first HVAP killed my panthers frontal armor. I wasnt pinged ("softened") before, in either case.
-
Somehting very simmilar happened to me about 2 months ago. Seen a t34 coming towards me, about 1500 out, i shot his turret, he absorbed my round, no damage. Shot his frontal hull 4 times when he was getting closer, 2 ricochets, 2 absorbtions, no damage. Then when he got under 1000, his first HVAP got my panthers frontal armor.
Yes, was IraqVet. Yes, he was riding on it for like 2 hours, how lame i am.
Very simmilar thing happened yesterday. TWCCABOB's t34 vs my panther. I shot the upper side of his hull 2 times (not his track), rectangular impact not counting the sloping of the hull, 2 absorbtions, no damage, his first HVAP killed my panthers frontal armor. I wasnt pinged ("softened") before, in either case.
My T-34's always seem to be free kills to anything better than an M4A3(75). Almost may as well not be armored.
-
If you think you see an issue, film it and send it in. We can see exactly what happens to an impact with a film from the shooters view.
Angle of impact on the surface the shell hits has a large effect on what happens. And that includes how he, or his turret is turned to you.
HiTech
-
Heres an example. A t34/85 at a roughly 45% angle to you makes for a rather nasty target to hit, as anything you aim at is going to be a deflection shot except perhaps the turret, if it's aimed at you, but that has 100mm and is round. (again with the deflection) I've found trying for the side is the best bet, but even then it might be a better to move and try to get a better firing angle.
-
One oddity I have noticed is that a frontal shot on any tank is much more effective if you hit em very low, like where the glacias meets the bottom hull. That seems weird to me.
-
If you think you see an issue, film it and send it in. We can see exactly what happens to an impact with a film from the shooters view.
Angle of impact on the surface the shell hits has a large effect on what happens. And that includes how he, or his turret is turned to you.
HiTech
like the film i sent in about how rounds pass right in between the hull and turret of the T34's
-
Mk-84, I've only noticed that with T-34's and M4's. And thats because the armor is at a gentler slope down there, and so the effective thickness is less.
-
I sent in a video of a M4/76 AP penetrating and destroying the Panther I was in from 2800 yards out and the next patch there was a note in the change log saying a "damage issue with the Panther was corrected". I'll go find the exact patch.
Also, remember that even after all those years of people submitting videos and other such evidence regarding the T34's turret front being paper of cheese, HTC finally corrected that issue here within the last year or so. It takes time, but HTC does address it as they are able to.
One last thing... remember that armor sometimes just works. ;) The first thing I say to people when I hear/read a statement regarding '"I've hit him 5 times and he hits me once and kills me", is that angle of impact and range are the 2 trump cards. Most people think that a hit should be a kill. Beyond 1600 yards the angle of impact really becomes factor. Try this sometime: take a Panzer IV H and nail a Panther at 600 yards straight up to the front armor. Odds are the rounds deflect. Now back off to 1200 to 1600 yards and hit that same Panther straight up. That same AP that deflected at 600 yards now more like to bust through because the angle of impact is more perpendicular thanks to the trajectory. :aok Food for thought.
-
moin
i have something to say about the tank kill modell in AH. AH is mainly a Flight Simulator, in the years it becomes one of the best tank simulators too.
I knew alot of people who are complaining about the tank kill model, becaouse thay need to hit 4 times and the enmy only one time, mostly i start a large explanation about ww2 tank combat and that these hit things are not so easy as the most other games shows. there is no live bare over tank like in comand and conqer who you can say the tank is dad after 5 hits from a other.
alot of things are modeled right in AH tank damage model. The engery of a shell, the armor, the armor angel, and weeknes points, all these thing made the simulation realy realistk.
there are alot of reports fromm ww2 were a crew need alot of rounds to take out a enemy tank, the first rounds did not have any evect to the tank but the last hit the right point and got the kill. I tank combat you need to knew were to hit the enemy, a good hand to hit it were its need and at the end luck. The AH tank combat is everything but its not gamy. way to go for that work HTC.
christian
-
It's probably important to state that a "solid" hit does not always mean a kill like it appears many people do.
I.E. dont assume you must deserve a kill, just because you hit the side armor of a sherman at 800 out in your panther with 0 deflection. Are you likely to destroy it? Yes, is it a 100% sure thing? No. Is it supposed to be 100% No.
Kinda how when you penetrate a plane with a bullet or shell it does not always insta kill the aircraft.
-
The engery of a shell
If that were the case then anything beyond 1500, 2000 yards with a Pnz4 f2 or h then it should be impossible to destroy a panther or tiger as it is beyond what the gun is cappable of. i really dont get why if you shoot a bunch of rounds at a panther from 2500 yards with a pnz 4 F2 then why does one of those round actually get the kill?
And another thing, in real life no matter how good the gunner is the round never hit the same place twice. i have had and seen rounds hit the same place on a tank multible times. so for being realistic, its quite unrealistic in terms of accuracy.
-
And assuming a flat impact, it is. However the Panther has that lower nose weak spot. And I'm not sure if ricochets are able to do damage in AH, but there are recorded cases of shells ricocheting off of turret armor..... down onto the thin roof armor.
And the lack of shell randomization is probably because soviet vehicles would be complete toejam at long range, the Firefly would be meh, the USA would be OK, and the Germans would kick bellybutton in a long-ranged fight (which is easy to force in AH). But thats only relative to eachother, long ranged kills would still be difficult save for a few guns (KwK 42 L'70, and the KwK 43 L'71).
-
ricochets absoutley do damage, I took a wirble offline to see if I could destroy a tiger at almost point blank range and I ended up turreting myself :uhoh
-
And assuming a flat impact, it is. However the Panther has that lower nose weak spot. And I'm not sure if ricochets are able to do damage in AH, but there are recorded cases of shells ricocheting off of turret armor..... down onto the thin roof armor.
And the lack of shell randomization is probably because soviet vehicles would be complete toejam at long range, the Firefly would be meh, the USA would be OK, and the Germans would kick bellybutton in a long-ranged fight (which is easy to force in AH). But thats only relative to eachother, long ranged kills would still be difficult save for a few guns (KwK 42 L'70, and the KwK 43 L'71).
Given every document I read, the Panther's lower nose was never a weak spot, even american after war documents claim no american gun (below 90mm) had a chance to penetrate the panther's nose/upper/lower hull.
-
ricochets absoutley do damage, I took a wirble offline to see if I could destroy a tiger at almost point blank range and I ended up turreting myself :uhoh
I wish Pryo or HTC could comment on this, many times I RTB with 10-15 ricochets off my armor fearing the armor is weakened. Its been stated Stress on an aircraft wings make it weaker, ,I figure a tank probably follows the same lines.
If its TRUE, then it makes sense, weakened armor platings will break and be easily penetrated, its been shown late war "King tigers" were not the king of the battlefield, either the Russians made it up, or completely shrugged it off.
What I mean is they captured a King Tiger and tested it, its armor welding was so horrible that they figured a few hits in the same general area was enough to knock one out, I know Aces High DOES NOT MODEL the same way. The armor you get is a perfect King Tiger. However, I do want to know if ricochets bouncing off the armor causes it to weaken, or maybe someone just gets a lucky shot.
:noid
-
I wish Pryo or HTC could comment on this, many times I RTB with 10-15 ricochets off my armor fearing the armor is weakened. Its been stated Stress on an aircraft wings make it weaker, ,I figure a tank probably follows the same lines.
If its TRUE, then it makes sense, weakened armor platings will break and be easily penetrated, its been shown late war "King tigers" were not the king of the battlefield, either the Russians made it up, or completely shrugged it off.
What I mean is they captured a King Tiger and tested it, its armor welding was so horrible that they figured a few hits in the same general area was enough to knock one out, I know Aces High DOES NOT MODEL the same way. The armor you get is a perfect King Tiger. However, I do want to know if ricochets bouncing off the armor causes it to weaken, or maybe someone just gets a lucky shot.
:noid
I'll give HTC the benefit of the doubt on this one. Even from 200 yards away the 2nd shot has got to be perfectly in the same spot the first round hit, or else the armor is almost as good as new.
-
Given every document I read, the Panther's lower nose was never a weak spot, even american after war documents claim no american gun (below 90mm) had a chance to penetrate the panther's nose/upper/lower hull.
In practice, the lower nose was not a weak spot. However at LOS thickness, the lower nose only has about 87mm of armor protection. Clearly everything that goes into whether or not a shell ricochets in real life hasn't been included in the game, as we can regularly penetrate the Panther's lower hull even when the angle of impact is such that, when combined with the slope of the lower plate, chances of a penetration would be essentially zero in real life.
Now I admit this isn't realistic, but it is a factor in Aces High, and is well worth mentioning. Its one of two areas where the KwK 40 L'43 can penetrate the Panther from the front (its the only one I've been able to penetrate at more than ~1450yds).
I'll give HTC the benefit of the doubt on this one. Even from 200 yards away the 2nd shot has got to be perfectly in the same spot the first round hit, or else the armor is almost as good as new.
I don't know about that. Unless they did a stealth overhaul along with one of the other major updates, the tank gun/armor mechanics date back to the T-34, which was the first tank in the game. And given some of the suprising flaws and crudness in some of our major game components *cough*auto-puffy*cough*, I wouldn't be at all supprised to learn that HTC didn't model the armor weakening with ricochets.
But there is one thing I really want to know. Does anyone remember a while back (2-3 years) when the GV supplys had a bug for a while? The supplys would often fail to fix vehicle components, sometimes wouldn't reload your ammunition, and wouldn't "reset" your vehicle's "hit points". I remember something about them fixing the bug, but I can't remember if they made it so the supplys reset your 'hit points'. I never could get an answer out of anyone in the game, and as a result, like butcher, I always got nervous and took my vehicle home sooner than I might have.
-
The T-34/76 was the first AH2 tank. The first tank in the game was the Panzer IV H, the second was the Tiger I. The M3, M8, M16, LVT2, LVT(A)2 and Ostwind also predate the T-34/76.
-
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.
-
I wish Pryo or HTC could comment on this, many times I RTB with 10-15 ricochets off my armor fearing the armor is weakened. Its been stated Stress on an aircraft wings make it weaker, ,I figure a tank probably follows the same lines.
If its TRUE, then it makes sense, weakened armor platings will break and be easily penetrated, its been shown late war "King tigers" were not the king of the battlefield, either the Russians made it up, or completely shrugged it off.
What I mean is they captured a King Tiger and tested it, its armor welding was so horrible that they figured a few hits in the same general area was enough to knock one out, I know Aces High DOES NOT MODEL the same way. The armor you get is a perfect King Tiger. However, I do want to know if ricochets bouncing off the armor causes it to weaken, or maybe someone just gets a lucky shot.
:noid
Oh, on that I dont know, but I suspect no damage. I was talking about the shell hitting something else AFTER it bounces.
-
The T-34/76 was the first AH2 tank. The first tank in the game was the Panzer IV H, the second was the Tiger I. The M3, M8, M16, LVT2, LVT(A)2 and Ostwind also predate the T-34/76.
Regardless, given the astounding basic and flawed nature of the puffy ack, theres still a decent chance that the interaction of armor plate and tank shells are also simmilarly flawed.
-
Regardless, given the astounding basic and flawed nature of the puffy ack, theres still a decent chance that the interaction of armor plate and tank shells are also simmilarly flawed.
Those two things are not remotely linked. The puffy ack is modeled as it is due to the load that modeling it "correctly" would put on the servers. If you're going to use the puffy ack's method of implementation as evidence that something is off, you may as well say that about everything in the game.
The single biggest problem with the tank armor model in AH is that people expect consistent results as with a "hit point" system as is used on the airplanes or commonly used in role playing games. The fact is that because it is not modeled as a hit point system it is going to have physics based randomness to it that lead to the "I hit him 5 times doing nothing and he hit me once killing me!" whines.
The fact that there are bugs in the armor models for each tank exacerbates that, but HTC does plug those holes when they become aware of them.
-
I'm not saying that the one proves, or even hints at, the other, but that the one is an indicator that there could potentially be an issue with the other.
And Karnak, I'm not entirely sure a hitpoint system isn't modeled. Now I'm not saying anything on how they actually do have it modeled, but I for all the evidence I've seen that says they don't use an HP system, I've seen a roughly equal amount that says they don't use a critical component based system either.
I mean if it was purely component based, a shot to the side at very close range with a high penetrating gun (KwK 36, 17lber, KwK 42. But NOT the KwK 43, because it used an APCBC-HE shell) the odds are greater that you will just penetrate both side plates, doing no damage. It would also stand to reason that a tank empty on ammunition would only be killed by a hit taking out the driver, or a hit that ignites the engine (depending on where it hits the engine, this would only be possible when its running).
However, this doesn't appear to be the case in AH. Now granted that its possible they simply don't model the complexity of critical components to such a degree, it IS suggestive of an HP bases system.
And on the other side of things, a tank doesn't always die from the first engine hit, and sometimes it does. Now this could indicate that we have a fairly complex engine model, meaning that some parts are 'tougher' than others, that you simply have to destroy the engine first before damage done goes to the tank's overall HP pool, and that sometimes a shell just hits a very soft part of the engine that takes little damage to destroy, and the shell has enough damage left over to destroy the tank as well as the engine in a single hit.
It could also indicate that our component modeling goes beyond the engine itself, and that there is a possibility that a damaged engine won't catch fire (crew wouldn't have to bail out). And beyond that, it could also show that as long as the engine doesn't catch fire, it gives some added armor protection to the crew compartment infront of it (although this is also refuted by the fact that penetrated armor doesn't seem to be any easier to penetrate with a following shell, as would be nessecary for the engine-armor theory to be true).
Also look at the fact that a Tiger I can take a ton of 76mm HVAP rounds to the front without dying. This is very strong support for an HP-based system. On the (admitedly old) round-damage comparison chart on the AH trainer's web page, the 76mm HVAP shell does less damage than the AP shell. When you look at the two together, the only logical conclusion is that HTC uses an HP based system, with the damage done by a shell being reduced by the thickness of armor that is penetrated, and that the 100mm of armor on the Tiger I absorbs almost all of the damage done by the HVAP shell, which results in very little damage per penetration being done to the vehicle itself.
-
There is probably a hit point system for the internal components of the tank that is affected by the rounds that penetrate the armor. The armor penetration is not hit point based though.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :headscratch: I too feel the Panther has a glitch somewhere in the front armor, both in the lower hull and turret front.
-
T34 needs slightly better front hull armor in game than is currently.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :headscratch: 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".
-
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.
-
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.