Armor problem for Kingtiger and tiger

[Af1352pasha]

I think there is a mistake about armor protection for both tiger and king-tiger in data files. specially king-tiger easily knock out by allied AT or tank from frontal side.

is there any schedule to check and revised this type of problem in the next patch?

[RD Oddball]

Nobody has identified it as something needing looked at until now. I'll point it out to Steve. Thanks.

[kojusoki1]

Maybe nobody was patient enough to play that long;)
Sorry, but im waiting so much for the bloody patch;)

[RD Oddball]

The data is correct. I've tested 4 Shermans vs. a King Tiger and there is
not a single penetration by the Shermans. The Tiger II can still be gun
damaged or immobilzed by repeated 75mm hits, or take crew casualties from
spalling, however.

Steve

[STIENER]

how about the armour values for the Tiger 1 ? [8D]

[STIENER]

well the FF makes short work of the king tiger at 500m + - with one shot 1 kill. lost 3 tigers the 1st play test and 2 the second play test. this is 1 FF in a duel with multiple tigers.
some how i dont think this is right. this doesnt coralate with historical data. pen values and armour thickness. can we check this out please.

oh ya.......had a stuart take out a panther at about 500 m front shot with 1 shot 1 kill. that really isnt even remotely possible in actual fact.

are you guys using the GJS Data?? amour values and pen etc etc???????

[topper6]

I agree totally with Steiner. I meet Sherman Fireflys that are invincible to tanks, one aim-one shot-one kill. However, when Fireflys fire at AT-Guns, say like a PaK 7.5cm, they aren't even remotely as accurate and that's, more or less, the only way to kill them.

[Af1352pasha]

A I told before there is certainly problem with armor for tiger , king-tiger and also panther tanks . i checked the armor thickness for mentioned tanks in vehicles.txt data and compare with CC-TLD and CC-WAR , totally one-third to previous games , but for other tanks as Sherman or panzer IV approximately same. some body tell me which one is correct ?  as i remember vehicles specification definition belong to CC3 ,CC4 ,CC5 and there is no any revised specially to this matter.

maybe some body want to compensate and balance this superiority of Germans armor.

So there in no wonder if any body lost their tigers and panthers so easily when encounter with Sherman Firefly .that should be checked and correct in future patch.

[STIENER]

RD Oddball [&o]
can you check this out please? the penetration values of the FF and stuarts may be out and accuracies too. the germans should always have the edge on accuracie because of there optics...even at close ranges.

are the GJS values being used?? they were about the best as far as being tested and balanced.

the matrix lads all seem to be silent lately to my posts? [&:] no answers to my questions.[:(]

RD Steiner

[RD Oddball]

I can't really add anything meaningful to this discussion as the data design was Steve's. I'll mention this thread to him. I'm nearly certain his answer will be the same as previous replies similar to the one above but it's certainly worth looking at again.

[STIENER]

thanks for the reply Oddball. well if steve could check things out it would be cool. it appears to me that Hausser looked at some of the data for amour thickness and its not right......its less than it was in WAR etc for the same tanks. to me this is a huge flaw in the game if the armour stats and gun penetrations arent right. its no fun

i keep asking the question......is the GJS data for gun pen and armour thickness being used?

[SteveMcClaire]

Comparing LSA data values to previous games will often show significant differences, because the internal models in the game have changed. Kill ratings, armor, and terrain protection values have been normalized so they have the same meaning and are on the same scale (mm of steel) which was not the case in previous versions of the game. See this thread for a more in depth discussion:

fb.asp?m=2528335

All tanks now have an armor value calculated from their actual / historical armor protection, in mm of steel, with plate, facing, and shot angles factored in. Penetration values for guns are also taken from historical test / performance data. 17pdr and M6 37mm gun accuracies are identical to every other large caliber gun in the game. The effect of sight optical quality on aiming at 'battle sight' ranges is minimal, but the sight quality is one of the factors used to determine the range bands in the data (close, medium, long) and the longer range values for these range bands for some German weapons over comparable Allied ones.

I did make a tweak to reduce internal damage from non-penetrating hits in the 02b update (available now). This may account for some incorrect damage to vehicles from hits that don't penetrate armor. However, even King Tigers still could be penetrated by a 17pdr at close ranges, especially with APDS (SP) ammo.

Steve

[Andrew Williams]

armor, and terrain protection values have been normalized so they have the same meaning and are on the same scale (mm of steel) which was not the case in previous versions of the game. armor, and terrain protection values have been normalized so they have the same meaning and are on the same scale (mm of steel) which was not the case in previous versions of the game.

???

A lot of time was put into getting accurate data for WaR so can you please explain this Steve.


Might be time to line up a few tanks again to do some testing.

[SteveMcClaire]

As I said, the underlying model (in the code) changed so that related values in the data files actually measure the same thing using the same scale. See the thread I linked to for more details on why this was done. Since the model (and thus the meaning of the data) changed, some data values were re-calculated to fit the new model.

[STIENER]

thanks for the replys steve and andrew but i still say theres a problem......play test it yourself. more than just myself have seen this problem.
i agree that the FF with APDS (SP) ammo could penetrate the king tiger [ KT ] at ranges under 450m [ according to my info ]

king tiger front armour thickness 150mm @50* slope
KT side 80mm

my info is 17 pdr with APDS could pen 208 mm of armour at 450m @ 30* slope
with APCBC could pen 140mm or armour at 457 @ 30* slope
so the regular 17 pdr rd wont pen at 500m + and the APDS wont pen either at the range that it is doing it in my play tests. plus the tiger armour has MORE slope so the amour thickness goes UP not down.

and theres just no way a 37 mm stuart can take out a panther with a 37 mm gun with a frontal hit on the cat.
quoteing form a book on the batle of the bulge......there are numurous instances where panthers took multipul hits from the yank 57 mm a/t gun at close ranges with NO damage to the cat.....one excerpt quotes 23 hits from a 57 mm......thats not a 37 mm a/t gun.

[Andrew Williams]

Just did 3 quick tests

Stuarts V Panthers

When Stuart is AI controlled they won't even take a shot at the Panthers from in Front as they consider there is no chance to do damage.

Pnthers take out Stuarts with ease.

Multiple Stuart shots on AI Panther caused no damage.

to be continued....

[SteveMcClaire]

ORIGINAL: STIENER
thanks for the replys steve and andrew but i still say theres a problem......play test it yourself...

17pdr vs. Tiger II, using game data:

Upper front hull = 150mm @ 40 degrees = 233mm lateral thickness of the armor.
Lower front hull = 100mm @ 40 degrees = 155mm lateral armor.

These two values are combined (with higher weighting for the upper front hull value) to get 218mm effective armor for a low angle shot (i.e. around 0 degrees).

Turret front = 180mm @ 80 degrees = ~182mm.

17pdr penetration at 'point blank' range is 200mm for AP and 275mm for SP (APDS). Penetration values are largely derived from equations and data presented in the work "World War II Ballastics: Armor and Gunnery" by Bird and Livingston. It's a hard book to find but great for the technical details. It is possible there is an error in their table for the regular AP shot. I will double check this when I have time.

Based on this a short range shot from a 17pdr with APDS is likely to penetrate. An AP shot will likely fail to penetrate against the front hull, but can penetrate the turret front.

The M6 37mm gun should not be able to penetrate a Panther from the front. I am pretty confident that is not happening in the current model.

Even without a penetration, there is a small chance for external damage (track or weapon hits) for any decent
caliber weapon, and there is a chance for large caliber hits to cause crew casualties from spalling. And the crew may be deciding to bail out after getting immobilized and hit repeatedly. Possibly one of these is occurring a bit too often. As I said, I'll look at it.

Steve

[Andrew Williams]

Further practical testing

Stuart v Panther

Stuarts will not take a shot at approx. 490m

At 430m they will shoot at panthers and taking an average of 9 shots to destroy.




Stuart v TigerI

At 280m... 12 shots to destroy


Stuart v Tiger II

At 280m  it took 31 shots to destroy the King Tiger.


All taken on a level shooting range.

note: Even the TigerII was having creww killed and injured before it brewed up.

[Andrew Williams]

And more

Staghound 37mm @ 295m (won't fire beyond that approx.)

10 shots to destroy TigerII from dead in fron as above.

Sherman V 75mm @ 470m

7 shots to destroy TigerII from dead in fron as above.

[STIENER]

nice practical testing andrew [:)] perhaps a bit too much time on the stuart....its the FF vs tigers thats more of an issue i would say but thanks for doing the 37 MM.

the 75 sherman using a front shot against a king tiger should never be able to destoy it, unless its point blank? define point balnk.

Steve..thanks for the info [:)] ......define point blank range.....because in your case it apples to oranges...... 2m VS 500m. what is short range??
based on your info a FF still should not be able to pen a king tiger at short range and id say possibly not at point blank ...the numbers dont add up. again it might depend on what range point blank and short range is? if short range is 500m than at 500 m theres no chance of pen. if 500m is point blank.....posibbley?

now a tiger 1, then thats a little diff story......100mm of armour vs 233/155mm on the KT.