Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: lyric1 on February 04, 2013, 01:06:39 AM
-
M18 is the vehicle in question I seem to have a hard time killing tanks in this. I drive way out to flank other tanks them sneak in behind them to hit the soft part of the armour & more often than not I get this sort of thing.
http://www.4shared.com/file/dbO8rAYY/Hitting_Panther_in_the_wrong_s.html
Or am I just doing this wrong?
-
I can say there are some things to keep in mind about AP rounds. I usually mention the 2 most important things, but I'm going to start reminding people of three things: the 2 biggest trump cards are range and angle of impact. Also, sometimes armor works.
Trust me when say I know it is frustrating. The best thing I can suggest to to know the AP capability of the round you're firing, an approximate angle in which your rounds are impacting (that can be very difficult due to terrain variation, the small window of time a person has to observe an impact, the angle of the armor of the target vehicle, and the directional facing of the target in question). In a perfect world, your AP round would impact perfectly at °90 ll the time and you'd get the absolute best AP performance available, but there are too many trump cards being played.
Also, I did some digging in to the effectiveness of AP rounds (this does not pertain to lyric's issue though), and though I could not find exactly what I was looking for I did find some information laterally concerning the AP ability of certain projectiles over various ranges. For instance, some of the most common rifle calibers in the world such as the 5.56 NATO (both variations), 7.62 NATO, 7.62x39 Soviet, and 7.62x54R Russian, have all been tested for best penetration capabilities over multiple range against multiple kinds of mediums. I do not have the data in front of me and I will have to dig it up again, but from memory I remember that on average but the best range for the 5.56 NATO for penetration was 200 yards, anything closer and the bullet shredded and broke apart and anything further away the kinetic energy started to decline. The 7.62x39 Soviet performed best in the low 200's yards. The 7.62 NATO did its best penetration in the upper 200's as did the 7.62x54R Russian. The point of all this is simple: I believe that when fired "close", there is a chance that the AP ability of a projectile can be reduced thanks to the mass times weight vs object integrity thingy equation.
I try my best to know the abilities of every tank out there. If I'm in a Panther, I'm not too worried about anything outside of 1600 yards to my front except a King Tiger, Firefly, Tiger, or another Panther (and in that order). Not that it can't be done, but the odds of everything being perfect enough for a Panzer IV H and lower (yes, the Panther IV H has better AP than all other tanks in AH except the 4 mentioned above), defeating the Panther from the front beyond the 1600-1800 yard mark is slight. Take it with a grain of salt because there are always exceptions to the rule. :aok
-
I analyzed your film. Here is the post mortem.
Shot 1 went just under the rear armor and struck the inside of the right track, did some damage to it and exited out the right side of the track.
Shot 2 struck and penetrated the outside of the left track, it then struck the 40mm thick lower side armor at an angle of 54 degrees. Because of the hit to the track and the high angle of the shot, it barely achieved a penetration to the main compartment and did not have sufficient energy left for a clean kill.
Shot 3 first struck the thin fender which it easily penetrated. It then struck the 50mm upper side armor at an angle of 58 degrees. Again it barely penetrates that armor due to the high angle of the shot, this time into the engine compartment but it didn't carry enough energy to kill the engine outright.
Had you been able to put your rounds into the rear armor, you would have had a much better impact angle. The rear also had either thinner armor or didn't have to get through a track first compared to your hits on the side. I think if you had put those rounds into his rear armor, the first shot would have knocked out his engine and the second shot would have finished him.
-
I analyzed your film. Here is the post mortem.
Shot 1 went just under the rear armor and struck the inside of the right track, did some damage to it and exited out the right side of the track.
Shot 2 struck and penetrated the outside of the left track, it then struck the 40mm thick lower side armor at an angle of 54 degrees. Because of the hit to the track and the high angle of the shot, it barely achieved a penetration to the main compartment and did not have sufficient energy left for a clean kill.
Shot 3 first struck the thin fender which it easily penetrated. It then struck the 50mm upper side armor at an angle of 58 degrees. Again it barely penetrates that armor due to the high angle of the shot, this time into the engine compartment but it didn't carry enough energy to kill the engine outright.
Had you been able to put your rounds into the rear armor, you would have had a much better impact angle. The rear also had either thinner armor or didn't have to get through a track first compared to your hits on the side. I think if you had put those rounds into his rear armor, the first shot would have knocked out his engine and the second shot would have finished him.
Great thank you for that.
Will just have to square my self up & get a little closer in future.
-
I analyzed your film. Here is the post mortem.
Shot 1 went just under the rear armor and struck the inside of the right track, did some damage to it and exited out the right side of the track.
Shot 2 struck and penetrated the outside of the left track, it then struck the 40mm thick lower side armor at an angle of 54 degrees. Because of the hit to the track and the high angle of the shot, it barely achieved a penetration to the main compartment and did not have sufficient energy left for a clean kill.
Shot 3 first struck the thin fender which it easily penetrated. It then struck the 50mm upper side armor at an angle of 58 degrees. Again it barely penetrates that armor due to the high angle of the shot, this time into the engine compartment but it didn't carry enough energy to kill the engine outright.
Had you been able to put your rounds into the rear armor, you would have had a much better impact angle. The rear also had either thinner armor or didn't have to get through a track first compared to your hits on the side. I think if you had put those rounds into his rear armor, the first shot would have knocked out his engine and the second shot would have finished him.
Pyro's replay says a LOT about the complexity of the modeling of the GV game. The tracks and even the fenders of a tank can contribute to its defense, and that angle of impact means everything. ;)
-
I once reviewed a person's film - who whined up and down about his shots, after 20 rounds fired, It ended up like this "miss, miss, ricochet, miss miss, ricochet, miss"
One of the major problems that I noticed in the film viewer was, if a tank was a certain distance away you didn't have Icons.
I had to wait until he fired, to follow the shell to track what target he was shooting at.
In the end, it was horrible gunnery skills that plagued him, not actual damage (Panther or not against a Panzer 4 at 1500 yards).
-
Pyro's replay says a LOT about the complexity of the modeling of the GV game. The tracks and even the fenders of a tank can contribute to its defense, and that angle of impact means everything. ;)
Pyros replay shows that AH film viewer could show us this penetration data when viewing films. Cutaway image of the tank and the projectile passing through it.
-
One thing I recall reading somewhere was that some experienced Tiger I crews angled the hull of the tank at 45 degrees to their opponent when under fire. This effectively gave them 45 degree sloped armour and it worked because the side armour was relatively thick on that tank.
-
Pyros replay shows that AH film viewer could show us this penetration data when viewing films. Cutaway image of the tank and the projectile passing through it.
Indeed. I sent in a video over a year ago regarding my Panther being taken out by a M4/76mm at 2800 yards. The shot hit the front of the front of the right track then kept going and hit the lower side hull armor about 1/2 to 2/3 the length back on the tank side hull and STILL penetrated. The angle of impact was around °20. There were three things really fishy about that scenario: First, the range of 2800 yards; second, the capability of the round to penetrate that far parallel through the track, and; third the angle of impact was so very shallow. I sent in the film and posted pictures of the "tracer" as it hit the Panther, I never did hear of the results directly but I believe there were notes in the next version that "corrected various damage bugs". See thread and pic below for reference (I only have 2 pics left of the tracer on tank impact, I had another that showed the hit from the low front)-
Thread:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,305846.15.html
Pics: (the shooter was TyFoo)
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg169/JRBL1A1/PantherKillShot2_zps8e85b976.png)
(http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg169/JRBL1A1/PantherKillShot_zpsdda75952.png)
-
The Panther had a bug that left an opening in the armor in the treadwell. It was listed in the readme as: Fixed a damage mapping bug in the Panther's treadwell.
When it comes to finding bugs or anomalies in armor, films are really important.
-
Pyro, that damage analysis that you performed, is that information available to the rest of us or did you have to take apart the film on a designer level to do it?
If it isn't available to the rest of us, it would be an incredible tool if some easy GUI based analysis was available.
-
Pyro, that damage analysis that you performed, is that information available to the rest of us or did you have to take apart the film on a designer level to do it?
If it isn't available to the rest of us, it would be an incredible tool if some easy GUI based analysis was available.
It has to do with the "coad", and I bet to us commoners we aint gunta be abul to reed it no how.
Just do like Pyro says and film it and send it in. I film about %90 of my engagements and when something occurs that according to the "hard" facts should not be able to happen (M8 defeating a Tiger from the front, or a M3 w/ the single .50 cal destroying a Panther from the exterior, T34/76 defeating a Panther at 2000 yards from the front, etc), then I dig in to that film and analyze at least the impact point, angle, critical component hit, etc.
-
Pyro's replay says a LOT about the complexity of the modeling of the GV game. The tracks and even the fenders of a tank can contribute to its defense, and that angle of impact means everything. ;)
It sounds like every 3d modeled part of a tank we see is modeled in terms of "toughness" as well as an armor component, and certain parts either count or do not count as critical components, each themselves with a damage tolerance.
For example if I hit a roadwheel of an enemy tank it has to go through the wheel before hitting the side hull armor. It could "destroy" that wheel but not the track as a whole and either ricochet off of the hull armor or damage it. The next shot might be better placed hitting the same wheel as opposed to a different wheel as a result, but it still has to penetrate the hull, but perhaps not as much that already hit wheel? Am I on to the right thought process here?
-
It sounds like every 3d modeled part of a tank we see is modeled in terms of "toughness" as well as an armor component, and certain parts either count or do not count as critical components, each themselves with a damage tolerance.
For example if I hit a roadwheel of an enemy tank it has to go through the wheel before hitting the side hull armor. It could "destroy" that wheel but not the track as a whole and either ricochet off of the hull armor or damage it. The next shot might be better placed hitting the same wheel as opposed to a different wheel as a result, but it still has to penetrate the hull, but perhaps not as much that already hit wheel? Am I on to the right thought process here?
Would make perfect sense. The track and wheels certainly would take a bite out of an AP round, no doubt. There have been explanations of pictures and films previously where HTC has said that [paraphrased] "the round squeezed between the wheel/track and hit the lower hull armor", etc. I've said multiple times before, the "coad" in the gv game is much more intricate than most will give it credit for.
-
Lets get some real tank killers in the game like the JagdPather the Panzer IV/70 or Jagdtiger. I would even settle for a Sturmgeschultz IV or the sd.Kfz 142 Stug & Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer. Even the Stug III G 75mm assault gun would be great. Anyone with a good throwing arm and a larger rock can knock the turret out of the M-18. Lets get a mans tank killer in here. while we are at it lets put the correct 360% turning MGs back on the German rides. I have personally saw the ring mounts on Tigers & Panthers at the Patton museum and the MGs came with an anti aircraft ring sight as part of the TO&E. Even the Infantry had a tripod MG stand and it too had a aircraft ring sight issued with it. Like my old man always said" If you are going to do something do it right.
-
Lets get some real tank killers in the game like the JagdPather the Panzer IV/70 or Jagdtiger. I would even settle for a Sturmgeschultz IV or the sd.Kfz 142 Stug & Jagdpanzer 38 Hetzer. Even the Stug III G 75mm assault gun would be great. Anyone with a good throwing arm and a larger rock can knock the turret out of the M-18. Lets get a mans tank killer in here. while we are at it lets put the correct 360% turning MGs back on the German rides. I have personally saw the ring mounts on Tigers & Panthers at the Patton museum and the MGs came with an anti aircraft ring sight as part of the TO&E. Even the Infantry had a tripod MG stand and it too had a aircraft ring sight issued with it. Like my old man always said" If you are going to do something do it right.
:headscratch: Did you forgot to take your meds this morning? Settle down, else you'll soil your drawers. ;)
A "real" tank destroyer? I'm sorry if your M18 bas been damaged by a rock tossing Neanderthal, but I think you're missing the point of the M18. It was one of the best tank destroyers in WWII. You mention the StG III and its 7.5cm gun, mind you it is the same exact thing as AH's current Panzer IV H but the StG has a far less field of fire. Same goes for the Hetzer. Now the Jagdtiger, Panzer IV/70, etc, they might be alright. Ditto goes for the Su-100.
As far as the MG rings on the turrets of German tanks, as yourself *how* a TC fires those MG's when he is incapable of pivoting around the gun mount like the TC's on the Shermans are able to do. The shooter on the M4's MG's usually get out of the turret to use them while the shooter in the German tanks stay in the turret. Yes?
-
The pintle mount revolves around him. To fire directly aft the commander would have to move the mount all the way to either side and lean out a bit to aim.
(http://militarymodels.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/Z-08-1.jpg)
-
A modernized system is still being used on tanks of German manufacture today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_gPUfWd__U
-
Nice. So in other words HTC modeled that correctly? :aok :D
-
I'm not a GV guy in this game; can the TC lean out and fire to the rear?
-
I'm not a GV guy in this game; can the TC lean out and fire to the rear?
While in the King Tiger, Tiger, and Panther, (I think the Panzer IV too), the TC can pivot his MG left to about the 10 O'clock, then around to the right to not quite 6 O'clock. According to the example you've posted... that would be exactly how it should be modeled. The tank hatch opens to the 7 or 8 O'clock. :D
So yes, HTC does have it modeled correctly. :D :aok
-
You seem to ignore the fact that the MG itself is movable on its mount. It's a pintle mount with a movable vehicle attachment. It should easily cover 360 degrees.
-
Moving that gun requires not only the gun itself but also the mount,, which is another key command,,, I don't use it e nought to remember off the top of my head which one though maybe position 4 or 5
-
If that is how it works then it is indeed correctly modeled.
-
3 lets you aim and fire from the flex mounting point. 4 lets you reposition the mount on the ring.
-
Sounds perfect.
-
The pintle mount revolves around him. To fire directly aft the commander would have to move the mount all the way to either side and lean out a bit to aim.
(http://militarymodels.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/Z-08-1.jpg)
Thank you for posting the correct MG mounting ring.
-
Nice. So in other words HTC modeled that correctly? :aok :D
No it is not. Take a trip to a WWII Musem and look at the MG rings on the late war German tanks. I have even seen twin mounted MGs on a ring.
-
You seem to ignore the fact that the MG itself is movable on its mount. It's a pintle mount with a movable vehicle attachment. It should easily cover 360 degrees.
Correct.
-
Correct.
The gun can cover °360 around the tank perhaps thanks to the pivot mount, but the turret mount that covers the 10 O'clock to the 5 O'clock position simply cant get there if there is no rail for it to traverse on. I understand that there may have been some LW German tanks with a complete or near complete turret rail, but in AH these tanks do not. So for the tanks that HTC has represented in AH I'd say they are spot on. IIRC, it is debatable as to whether or not the Panther G came standard with the pintle gun at all?
-
3 lets you aim and fire from the flex mounting point. 4 lets you reposition the mount on the ring.
I see what you are talking about with position 3 & 4 on the MG. That makes a big deference thank you for the information that will be a big help. But why not just use the same model as the MK IV panzer? I used to GV almost exclusively but the transmission changes pretty much chased me into planes. Aces High is still brilliant even if I have some complaints. no other on line game even comes close to the game play here.