question: what is the probability of weakpoint hit?

[noooooo]

Again in my opinion the best solution is to make the value moddable. Once it's moddable then everyone can change it to fit their own ideas. Hopefully this is one feature added in the future.

[gbem]

Then again one could say hitpoints is an abstraction and turn armored brigade into COH2 xD

The better the modelling of mechanics the better imo xD

[gbem]

Imo the best solution is modelling the weakspot via 2 additional armor values... its more accurate than the former...

[Lieste]

I seem to recall this was at one point a triangular distribution (from 100% at 85% coverage, to 20% at 0% coverage)

Is this not still the case, or have I miss-remembered?

[kevinkins]

Perhaps this is one those issues that just has to play itself out as players observe how the current 15% value holds up under actual scenario play. It could be moddable. But when we get to some form of multiplayer there will have to be a way to let both sides know they are playing under the agreed value. Not a big deal. As for community scenarios, the briefing would include "tested using x% weak point hit probability". When we do get multiplayer, having what some think is a large value might be the only way NATO can stand up to a USSR attack handled by a human opponent.

Kevin

[gbem]

weak point hit probability should be done in proportion regarding the armor of the tank... IE leopards having the smallest weakpoint hitrate (only the turret ring) followed by the T series (cleavage and turret cheeks and then the M1 (mantlet huge turret ring turret cheeks the UFP may result into ricochets into the turret ring aswell)

note that i dont count the LFP weakspot for the T series and the leopard as line of sight to the LFP at long distances is mostly not present

T-80U
leo 2a4
T-72B
M1 abrams

steel beasts isnt the best source for the approximate RHAE of both the armor and its weakpoints... but at least steel beasts gives a good idea for the size of the weakpoints in contrast to the armor

[gbem]

i tested the UFP weakspot (cleavage) of the T-80U against its upper frontal plate alone (tracks not included) and it only accounts for 8% of the total area... thats the upper frontal plate alone without considering the tracks and other inert areas of the upper frontal plate...

[Werezak]

ORIGINAL: gbem

weak point hit probability should be done in proportion regarding the armor of the tank... IE leopards having the smallest weakpoint hitrate (only the turret ring) followed by the T series (cleavage and turret cheeks and then the M1 (mantlet huge turret ring turret cheeks the UFP may result into ricochets into the turret ring aswell)

note that i dont count the LFP weakspot for the T series and the leopard as line of sight to the LFP at long distances is mostly not present

T-80U
leo 2a4
T-72B
M1 abrams

steel beasts isnt the best source for the approximate RHAE of both the armor and its weakpoints... but at least steel beasts gives a good idea for the size of the weakpoints in contrast to the armor

If we're just trying to get a sense of what would make for a good default value, it's not a bad place to start.

My gut feeling is that 8-9% would be more accurate than 15%, and then add support for specifying values for individual vehicles - both the weakpoint hit chance and perhaps also the weakpoint armor multiplier (the 0.2x value that Veitikka mentioned earlier).

[Werezak]

ORIGINAL: gbem

i tested the UFP weakspot (cleavage) of the T-80U against its upper frontal plate alone (tracks not included) and it only accounts for 8% of the total area... thats the upper frontal plate alone without considering the tracks and other inert areas of the upper frontal plate...

What value do you get if you include the tracks? The entire profile?

[gbem]

if i consider the armor profile above the frontal plate but below the turret including all inert mass its approximately 4% of the profile... the turret being rounded is harder to calculate precisely but the weakspot of the turret for the T-80 (minus the area of the gun barrel)is approx 7% of the armor profile... with 8% being a better estimate.... overall only 5% of the cross section of the armor is a weakspot if the lower frontal plate considered hidden

[gbem]

the Leopard 2a4 also accounts for a similar value at around 6% of its cross sectional area... interestingly enough the leo2a4 has a larger weakspot area than the T-80 thanks to its turret ring... but the leo 2a4 has more consistent armor protection while the T-80U has areas virtually impenetrable while others are simply average and even others are extremely weak... the leo 2a4`s weakspot stronger than the T-80U`s cleavage

[gbem]

Yeah, this is the one for T-80U, here for M1A2 (probably equivalent of or slightly better than M1A1HA in AB.) Leopard 2 Improved is 2A5 and a massive improvement on the 2A4.

So as you can see, the weak spot rule in AB is really an arbitration. In the game it's a flat 665 RHAe for the turret front and 15% chance of 133. In reality there's spots with 300, 400 etc and some even 800. So whatever number you come up with it's still an arbitration.

And to throw in the fact that every single tank in the game is going to have that same weak spot chance and that means conceptually whatever calculation you come up with doesn't matter because it has to be applicable to every vehicle in the game.

the problem with that is the T-80U is that test only considers part of the turret profile for the T-80U... not the entire profile of its turret... indeed when calculating based on those numbers i also came up with a similar but slightly lower result of 11% for a 460 RHA equivalent round... therefore the problem here is that this test only considers areas where penetration results into entry into the crew compartment in contrast to my calculation where i included inert areas of the T-80U... areas of high hit angle that result into autobounces or no post penetration damage...

Remember that the complex hit angles of the T80U is already simulated ingame

[dpabrams]

I am editing my data base ammo and inserting the SB Pro ballistics for starters on the US, M68 105mm and M256 120mm and the Soviet 100mm, 115mm and 125mm. The APDamage data will match the SB Pro data set. There are some differences in the two data sets (AB vs SB Pro), and we all know that the US 120mm has been downgraded 10% or so and that some Soviet 125mm are up rated. The velocities between the data sets is the same the majority of the time. The big difference I see is that Soviet and some US M68 ammo, max ranges are too far ranging between the data sets. It seems that you take the max range and x 0.775 to get the accuracyRange figure for most stadi and coincidence range finders. So for example in game the 100mm BR-412D AP-T has a maxRange of 2000 meters and a accuracyRange of 1550 meters. AccuracyRange is that range in which, accuracy is half that of the accuracyBase, which is 90.000 for most AP rounds in game. So that means the range at which there is a 45% chance of a hit, I think. Now according to the SB Wiki the 100mm BR-412D AP-T has a range of 1500 meters. Obviously the range of the round is longer but it's also factoring in the ability of the optics and crew to hit something. Recalculating the for this show a new maxRange of 1500 meters and a accuracyRange of 1162.5 meters. Meaning that at 1162.5 meters a 100mm BR-412D AP-T has a 45% chance for a hit.

I am still working on this more later

[gbem]

There are some differences in the two data sets (AB vs SB Pro), and we all know that the US 120mm has been downgraded 10% or so and that some Soviet 125mm are up rated.

because the russians use V80 + high hardness steel in their penetration tests something SB pro failed to take account for... in fact the 3bm32 vant and the 3bm42 mango even the DM33 are still underperforming based on the odermatt equation

an old argument of mine... read to the end

The Soviet standard for calculating the penetration limit of armour piercing projectiles is V80, meaning that the expected consistency of achieving full armour perforation given a certain projectile velocity must be 80%. In formulas, V80 must replace V50 (50% chance of armour perforation). For example, if a certain projectile has to penetrate 500mm of steel, then at least 80% of all projectiles of that type must achieve that standard. Also, the Soviet criteria for a full armour perforation dictates that 80% of projectile mass must be recorded on the other side of the target plate as opposed to U.S Army criteria which only requires that a hole is produced in the armour such that light can be seen from the other side. Overall, Soviet standards were not only stricter, but the steel they used for targets was sometimes of a greater hardness than NATO targets. In reality, the given penetration data may be an underrepresentation of the actual achievable penetration of these shells.

source


also none of those statements are related to overall weakspot probability hit... ingame its a simple flat 15% chance of hitting a weakspot... the whole argument here is stating that 15% is simply too high judging on what is already being modeled in the game and in contrast to real life

[Lowlaner2012]

I think the 15% should not be lowered, in lowering it you risk making T-55s and other Soviet tanks useless versus NATO tanks at most ranges...

Like nooooooo said its unrealistic for an M1A1 crew facing a superior number of T-55s to just chill out and pick off targets at will without any repercussions...

Cheers

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: Lowlaner2012

I think the 15% should not be lowered, in lowering it you risk making T-55s and other Soviet tanks useless versus NATO tanks at most ranges...

Like nooooooo said its unrealistic for an M1A1 crew facing a superior number of T-55s to just chill out and pick off targets at will without any repercussions...

Cheers

Not to mention that these are T55s with 1980s ammo and armor.

Also, from my tests (which anyone can replicate using the save file I uploaded), weak spot hits are BY NO MEANS 100% chance of damage or destruction. From what I've observed, only about 1/3rd of the time do weak spot hits from T55 actually damage the Abrams and even less result in instant destruction.

There's more going on under the hood of the game that we don't know.

[gbem]

I think the 15% should not be lowered, in lowering it you risk making T-55s and other Soviet tanks useless versus NATO tanks at most ranges...

Like nooooooo said its unrealistic for an M1A1 crew facing a superior number of T-55s to just chill out and pick off targets at will without any repercussions...

Cheers

The T-80U is perfectly capable of competing against the M1A1(HA) even with the 3bm42 and 3bm32 underrepresented (both need to be uprated)
same goes with the T-72B mod 89

the T-80BV and T-72B can also compete just fine against the M1A1 and remains superior against M1IP and base M1 abrams

its also far too unrealistic to have 15% weakpoint hit chance on a T-80U or a leopard 2a4.... weakspot hitchance should be assignable to the tank itself along with the "average" strength of such weakspots... my rough estimations gave me 5 to 6% for the T-80U and 6% for the 2a4.... the abrams should have a higher weakspot hitchance than both... havent done the numbers but the weakspot area is relatively huge in comparison to the other 2 tanks...

[gbem]

Not to mention that these are T55s with 1980s ammo and armor.

Also, from my tests (which anyone can replicate using the save file I uploaded), weak spot hits are BY NO MEANS 100% chance of damage or destruction. From what I've observed, only about 1/3rd of the time do weak spot hits from T55 actually damage the Abrams and even less result in instant destruction.

There's more going on under the hood of the game that we don't know.

considering the T-55 is still using the 3bm25 which is a 1970s round its expected that said ammunition would have trouble penetrating the abrams unless it hits the turret ring or ricochets off the upper frontal plate and hits the turret ring... which for the abrams is frankly a large area in contrast to the leo 2a4 or the T-80U... but 15% is unrealistic for that

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: gbem

I think the 15% should not be lowered, in lowering it you risk making T-55s and other Soviet tanks useless versus NATO tanks at most ranges...

Like nooooooo said its unrealistic for an M1A1 crew facing a superior number of T-55s to just chill out and pick off targets at will without any repercussions...

Cheers

The T-80U is perfectly capable of competing against the M1A1(HA) even with the 3bm42 and 3bm32 underrepresented (both need to be uprated)
same goes with the T-72B mod 89

the T-80BV and T-72B can also compete just fine against the M1A1 and remains superior against M1IP and base M1 abrams

its also far too unrealistic to have 15% weakpoint hit chance on a T-80U or a leopard 2a4.... weakspot hitchance should be assignable to the tank itself along with the "average" strength of such weakspots... my rough estimations gave me 5 to 6% for the T-80U and 6% for the 2a4.... the abrams should have a higher weakspot hitchance than both... havent done the numbers but the weakspot area is relatively huge in comparison to the other 2 tanks...

Except you are completely wrong in reality. So far you have shown that your sources consists of two things:
1. Your feelings
2. Steel Beasts

Neither of which is an actually authentic source.

Here's a translated quote from Rickard O. Lindström who worked for the Swedish FMV on the Strv 122. He tested multiple foreign tanks such as the Abrams, T-80U and here's what he had to say about the armor coverage of the T-80U:

Combined with the replaceable composite guard (a type of polyurethane punching pans that could also be upgraded with, for example, ceramic rods) in the tower, protection levels were well above what the western ammunition could break through. However, there were large ballistic holes (ie surfaces without protection from special pans) and in addition, explosive reactive solutions were only effective at 50% of the projected target surface.

[noooooo]

ORIGINAL: gbem

Not to mention that these are T55s with 1980s ammo and armor.

Also, from my tests (which anyone can replicate using the save file I uploaded), weak spot hits are BY NO MEANS 100% chance of damage or destruction. From what I've observed, only about 1/3rd of the time do weak spot hits from T55 actually damage the Abrams and even less result in instant destruction.

There's more going on under the hood of the game that we don't know.

considering the T-55 is still using the 3bm25 which is a 1970s round its expected that said ammunition would have trouble penetrating the abrams unless it hits the turret ring or ricochets off the upper frontal plate and hits the turret ring... which for the abrams is frankly a large area in contrast to the leo 2a4 or the T-80U... but 15% is unrealistic for that

Again, in the game a weakshot hit is BY NO MEANS a penetration. I have demonstrated this yet you continue to regurgitate the same arguments.