Armor / Next Patch ??

[Cptn_Miller]

Any word on when we can expect the next patch? Which will hopefully include a fix for the armor values of the Panther and others.... tired of 75mm shermans taking out my panthers from the front...

[Andrew Williams]

A "beta" exe patch is about to be released to address a few reports of HOT GPU's in some systems.

Follow up data/graphics etc changes are in the works

[Platoon_Michael]

Is it possible to get a Data forum for ideas to be included?

I wouldnt mind seeing something happen to how troops/vehicles respond to deep water that I posted somewhere else here.

[Neil N]

ORIGINAL: Cptn_Miller

Any word on when we can expect the next patch? Which will hopefully include a fix for the armor values of the Panther and others.... tired of 75mm shermans taking out my panthers from the front...

If shermans are currently taking out your Panthers from the front in, there is likely an elevation difference involved...otherwise, you are not going to like the data changes, because the current armor values have the front armor of the Panther about 50% thicker than reality

[Tejszd]

Everyone needs to understand that at the range guns and tanks are engaging in CC most things are deadly to each other.

But having said that the more accurate the data the better. The panther armour is to high in the game but then the Sherman 75 gun seems too high at very short ranges. This thread has bunch of discussion on it; tm.asp?m=1949841

Based On Data On The Web;
The 75mm L31 at 457m can go through 60mm at 30 degrees which equals 69mm
The 75mm L40 at 457m can go through 76mm at 30 degrees which equals 88mm

The Game Data:
141mm at 100m
123mm at 300m

So what should/would be the penetration at 100m and 300m?

[Neil N]

ORIGINAL: Tejszd

Everyone needs to understand that at the range guns and tanks are engaging in CC most things are deadly to each other.

But having said that the more accurate the data the better. The panther armour is to high in the game but then the Sherman 75 gun seems too high at very short ranges. This thread has bunch of discussion on it; tm.asp?m=1949841

Based On Data On The Web;
The 75mm L31 at 457m can go through 60mm at 30 degrees which equals 69mm
The 75mm L40 at 457m can go through 76mm at 30 degrees which equals 88mm

The Game Data:
141mm at 100m
123mm at 300m

So what should/would be the penetration at 100m and 300m?

My mission since yesterday is to verify some data. I spent 2 days going over all tank and spg armor values...making sure to have at least 2 sources with the same data prior to entering into the calculator. I am currently gathering source material for most of the weapons 20mm and up. One thing that I will be doing...giving the range of CC engagements, is standardizing all tank guns at 100m/500m/1000m...and using a formula to estimate PB range (50m) penetrations

Using the M3 75mm L40 as an example:
with 2 sources we have the following. First number is penetration of 30 degree armor plate, and second number is the equivalent total penetration

50m = 94/109
100m = 88/102
500m = 73/84
1000m = 59/68

[KWP]

One thing that I will be doing...giving the range of CC engagements, is standardizing all tank guns at 100m/500m/1000m...and using a formula to estimate PB range (50m) penetrations

I thought the range modifiers (Point Blank, Close, Medium, and Long) for each type of a weapon's round were used to determine the chances of hitting the target because it would be based on a weapon's muzzle velocity, the ballistic characteristics of the projectile, and the accuracy of the optical sights.

Wouldn't that mean that the 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 would have a much flatter trajectory and therefore a "Point Blank" range that is much greater than the M3 75mm L40?

[Neil N]

Obviously Steve would know better than me, but given the lack of data for each individual weapon regarding muzzle velocity, ballistic performance, and sight accuracy, I would not think that all of that is going on.  Some kind of operation is being performed on the 'Base Accuracy' to determine hit porbability at varying ranges, but I am guessing it is more generalized, otherwise I think we would need to input those data fields somehow for calculation.
 
The 100/500/1000 was just a result of trying to acceptable ranges where the most amount of penetration information can be found for the greatest number of weapons.

[KWP]

I think you might have misunderstood me. The workbook allows you to enter a weapon's PB, Close, Medium, and Long ranges for different ammo loads. I am just asking if it is realistic to assume that the same distance is PB for all weapons as all weapons have varying characteristics. I was under the impression that the engine used the range to the target to determine which range modifier would be used to modify the weapons base accuracy value in order to determine the chance of hitting the target.

The workbook also has Kill Rating columns for the various ranges and I thought those values were used to determine if the target is killed.

For example an M3 75mm L40 may be able to penetrate 88mm @ 100m and a 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 using Pzgr 39/42 may be able to penetrate 138mm @ 100m but that doesn't mean that both weapons have the same range for PB, Close, Medium, and Long because each weapon's projectile is going to follow a different arc to a target located at the same distance. The flatter the trajectory and the better the optics the longer the distance for each range category.

[Neil N]

Got it now.

Yeah, you are right, but given that about 99% of the data available for weapon performance is diven in ranges at, or near, 100m, 500m, 1000m, 1500m, etc. we would basically end up guessing if you start selecting ranges other than those.  1000m is already twice the distance of the largest CC5 map.  People already have lethality issues with tanks, and if we set up longer ranges at those limits, tanks would become even more lethal.

For example in combat, german data suggests that the KwK 36 L/56 of the Tiger I had a record of hitting on target 100% of the time at 500m, 93% of the time at 1000m, and 75% of the time at 1500m with AP...under combat conditions.  Similarly, the KwK 42 L/70 of the Panther was 100% @ 500m, 97% @ 1000m and 72% @ 1500m respectively.  If we used numbers like those on the 500m and smaller world of CC, I think the majority of people would get real frustrated, real fast.  Just some of the thought that went into it

[Stwa]

And I find it very good, that someone is at least going through this kind of data and making sure it makes sense. There will always be minor disagreements over the gun capabilities, and that is were a person can resort to a personal data mod, to make the game operate the way one wants.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: Tejszd

Everyone needs to understand that at the range guns and tanks are engaging in CC most things are deadly to each other.

But having said that the more accurate the data the better. The panther armour is to high in the game but then the Sherman 75 gun seems too high at very short ranges. This thread has bunch of discussion on it; tm.asp?m=1949841

Based On Data On The Web;
The 75mm L31 at 457m can go through 60mm at 30 degrees which equals 69mm
The 75mm L40 at 457m can go through 76mm at 30 degrees which equals 88mm

The Game Data:
141mm at 100m
123mm at 300m

So what should/would be the penetration at 100m and 300m?

Remember, all of your penetration data for the weapon has to be consistent throughout, i.e. either based on vertical plate or 30d. In addition, you should also adjust your final armor plate thickness for the target based on the actual armor slope of the target.

Thus, if your weapon penetration data is based on striking a 30d plate and the plate in question sits at less than 30d on the target, the value for the listed thickness of armor on the target should be reduced. Conversely, if the target's plate is sloped more than 30d, then the value for the thickness of armor on the target should be increased.

There are some additional factors for sloped armor that should be applied to account for deflection of the projectile.

[Neil N]

Most penetration data available is based on 30 sloped plates. With a little trigonometry, it can be determined what the total relative mm of penetration is. This are the numbers you find in the data columns. This is just determining perpendicular penetration. In the example above with the M3 75mm L/40 gun, if it can penetrate 60mm at 30 degrees, then it should be able to penetrate 69mm at vertical.

Likewise, the same is true for vehicle armor. Thickness and slope are taken into account to calculate the relative vertical thickness equivalent. For example, take the 40mm of armor on the side superstructure of the Panther D. It is sloped at 40 degrees from vertical, giving it a relative equivalent strength of 52mm of armor at vertical. The data goes a little further and gives relative thickness based on a shot striking at a low angle of attack (hardest to penetrate, best chance for deflection), medium angle of attack, and high angle of attack (almost perpendicular)

Close Combat data files use this relative vertical approach for specific reason of consistency. So now when the two meet, we have a projectile with a perpendicular penetration equivalent of xyz mm, and the armor has a relative vertical equivalent of abc mm of armor.

As far as additional factors, I guess those could be summed up into the calculation that goes into determining the final 'chance for a catastrophic event'. Sort of, if projectile A penetrates 100mm of relavtive armor and it is striking an area on a vehicle with 80mm of relative armor, then there is XX% chance of scoring a catastrophic hit.

[simovitch]

Most penetration data available is based on 30 sloped plates. With a little trigonometry, it can be determined what the total relative mm of penetration is. This are the numbers you find in the data columns.

Likewise, the same is true for vehicle armor. Thickness and slope are taken into account to calculate the relative vertical thickness equivalent. For example, take the 40mm of armor on the side superstructure of the Panther D. It is sloped at 40 degrees from vertical, giving it a relative equivalent strength of 52mm of armor at vertical.

I'm not familiar with the data structure for the weapons and vehicles in this game, so bear with me...[:)]

Let's say you use penetration data based on 30d sloped plates. Do you agree that if your tank has 40mm of armor that is sloped at 30d, your effective strength remains 40mm? (assuming a flat trajectory)

In other words, your penetration data based on 30d sloped plates is already penalized for the relative vertical thickness equivalent.

So you have to reduce the penalty if the tanks armor is >30d and apply more penalty if the armor is <30d. no?

edit: <> symbols were flipped.

[Andrew Williams]

The armour calculator takes into account the armor thickness and slope no matter what angle it is.

It doesn't assume a standard 30 degrees... you have to put in the correct angle and thickness.... the output is then the data you see in the game.

[fcam1387]

Hi guys,
&nbsp;
What about Tiger Is, IIs and Jagdtigers? I understand that these types were not around in significant numbers in the Ardennes, but surely there should be a couple available in some of the Panzer / mechanised battlegroup forcepools and not only on recruit difficulty levels?
&nbsp;
Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be an option for Tiger Is or the Jagdtigers...
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Neil N]

Very few Tiger I's (although there were a few) in the german BGs fighting in the Ardennes.&nbsp; There are Tiger IIs in in KG Peiper...there were only 2 units outfitted with Tiger IIs in WWII.&nbsp; To see them in the game, the germans need to be on the 'Recruit'...the less skilled the player, the better stuff he gets.&nbsp; As far as Jagdtigers only about 2-3 dozen had been produced by the time of WaR, and there doesn't seem to be solid evidence that any actually particapted...One unit was in Hungary, and the second unit wasn't formed until after WaR.&nbsp; They are in the game, so you could always modify the forcepool to include more of them

[Neil N]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

Let's say you use penetration data based on 30d sloped plates. Do you agree that if your tank has 40mm of armor that is sloped at 30d, your effective strength remains 40mm? (assuming a flat trajectory)

No. A projectile that impacts a 40mm plate, sloped at 30 degrees, while traveling on a flat trajectory would have to penetrate 46mm in order to completely penetrate the plate. So the effective strength (because of the slope) has been increased by 6mm at no additional weight. Hence the advantage of sloped armor...it gives the same relative protection of thicker, and therefore heavier, armor plate arranged on the vertical.

Hope that explains it

I'll attach a diagram in the morning

[Venator]

What he's trying to say, I think, is that if you take 30d as a 'base' then what he says works. He's assuming that you are comparing all armour thickness at 30d as standard. If you see what I mean.

In other words he knows that angle affects penetration and that 40mm at 30d is more effective thn vertical 40mm. It's just that he wonders if you are using 3od as a baseline for comparisons.

[Tejszd]

CC does not have/use angle information in the data. All armour and gun penetration data has to be converted to a vertical equivalent.