Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I don't get it.  Why is there no rear 8% arc at the bottom somehwere?  Is the rear suddenly safe after the 33% is done?

The 8% represents 1.1666 of 5 side hull locations that will have 60mm of armor. There are no such locations at the rear.
Because of variable penetration there is 1 in 3 chances that the hit will be a full penetration. So you get 1.1666/5 * 1/3 = 7.77%

ORIGINAL: Lieste

CP is certified (80% chance of 50% mass passing the plate) and IP is ?expected? penetration (50% of 50% mass passing)?

Actually, no. CP is 80% chance of 75% of mass passing plate. IP is 20% chance of 75% (not positive on this) of mass passing plate.

So even if you find the average of (80+20)/2 = 50% there still is the 75% of mass passing through plate.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Lieste

CP is certified (80% chance of 50% mass passing the plate) and IP is ?expected? penetration (50% of 50% mass passing)?

Actually, no. CP is 80% chance of 75% of mass passing plate. IP is 20% chance of 75% (not positive on this) of mass passing plate.

So even if you find the average of (80+20)/2 = 50% there still is the 75% of mass passing through plate.

Yes, half the time. Half not. Sort of defeats the 'understating' that is supposed to be somewhere?

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Lieste

CP is certified (80% chance of 50% mass passing the plate) and IP is ?expected? penetration (50% of 50% mass passing)?

Actually, no. CP is 80% chance of 75% of mass passing plate. IP is 20% chance of 75% (not positive on this) of mass passing plate.

So even if you find the average of (80+20)/2 = 50% there still is the 75% of mass passing through plate.

Yes, half the time. Half not. Sort of defeats the 'understating' that is supposed to be somewhere?

That suits the PCO armor penetration model quite well as it is based on probabilities not an engineering formula. If I did that petal diagram completely right it would be a series of concentric circles starting with an outer one of about 3% chance with each one adding up as they get closer to the tank.

Interesting little poster:

And here's one for the KV-1:

Those are pretty simple.
Russians did a test on their JS II.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Those are pretty simple.

Totally agree.

In fact, I don't believe that they're really "technical" in nature. Rather, they were used for training and to imbue in crews an (unwarranted) sense of confidence in their vehicles.

Scale line-drawings showing the relatively low silhouette T-34 and Stug:

Line drawings, for comparisons sake, of the same vehicles in hull-defilade view:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Those are pretty simple.

Totally agree.

In fact, I don't believe that they're really "technical" in nature. Rather, they were used for training and to imbue in crews an (unwarranted) sense of confidence in their vehicles.

I love when you try to talk above your paygrade. They aren't "technical" in nature? ROFLMAO! The US had thier own technical report that gave similar information. They are absolutely technical information. If anything, the Tiger information is a warning to crews regarding being attacked on certain surfaces and at certain angles.

My biggest issue with Mobius' 'clover-leaf' is the area between 1:30 and 2PM and the corresponding area between 10:00 and 10:30. Since his data is only reporting the BR-350A round, and the angle in these cases can be up to 750 meters in range, I find it very difficult to believe that the 'raw' 60mm side armor will be struck ( a very small area indeed) and that it would be penetrated if struck. The German information has the certainty at a much shorter range. and one might assume that they are factoring in other 76.2mm rounds for the T34 'lang'.

Edit: I don't agree with the back shaded areas either.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Line drawings, for comparisons sake, of the same vehicles in hull-defilade view:

Any reason that you have off-set the StuG higher? What is it you are trying to show with this information?

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Those are pretty simple.

Totally agree.

In fact, I don't believe that they're really "technical" in nature. Rather, they were used for training and to imbue in crews an (unwarranted) sense of confidence in their vehicles.

I love when you try to talk above your paygrade. They aren't "technical" in nature? ROFLMAO! The US had thier own technical report that gave similar information. They are absolutely technical information. If anything, the Tiger information is a warning to crews regarding being attacked on certain surfaces and at certain angles

The posters in question were put together for crew training purposes, not as technical guides:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
My biggest issue with Mobius' 'clover-leaf' is the area between 1:30 and 2PM and the corresponding area between 10:00 and 10:30. Since his data is only reporting the BR-350A round, and the angle in these cases can be up to 750 meters in range, I find it very difficult to believe that the 'raw' 60mm side armor will be struck ( a very small area indeed) and that it would be penetrated if struck. The German information has the certainty at a much shorter range. and one might assume that they are factoring in other 76.2mm rounds for the T34 'lang'.

Edit: I don't agree with the back shaded areas either.

I put some number to the shaded regions.
What is strange about the official clover leafs is that the ability to penetrated goes to 0% at 30 to 45 degrees. So you wonder if they just put an additional 30-45 degree slope on their armor it would be impervious to penetration from any angle.

I left out the area between 30° and 45° because I don't know how the game handles this area. In our miniature rules we give it an equal chance of hitting the front armor or side armor (at a deflection) just because the tank is usually much longer than it is wide. But the original developer may not have included that into the game.

I saw you put angles and also added a '4' arc.  How does one read the concentric arc lines?  Are they additive?  From the flank, its 26, then 4 and 8 on the outer ring? 

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I saw you put angles and also added a '4' arc.  How does one read the concentric arc lines?  Are they additive?  From the flank, its 26, then 4 and 8 on the outer ring? 

No they aren't additive, though probably in any other diagrams I should make them additive. Because of the number of different locations and the variation in penetration it is a complicated process getting all this in a picture. It might not be that useful in the end.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

I've tried to run down the % chances of penetration for the early round of the T-34 gun.
The 8% chance at the longer ranges reflects the vulnerable lower hull past the road wheels.

Should the '4's be 14????

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Line drawings, for comparisons sake, of the same vehicles in hull-defilade view:

What is it you are trying to show with this information?

Just wanted to compare the types as targets in hull-defilade. Clearly, the Stug has "a lot more to offer" the enemy in that regard.

And you have much to learn about simple math.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

And you have much to learn about simple math.

And you've got a lot to learn about technical matters. Your time at Fort Wood studying bulldozers has apparently left you with the impression that a wall-poster done in art-deco and fraktur is somehow the equivalent of a technical study. I know that the Army struggles with the quality of its recruits, but even you should have learned to distinguish what is little more than a cartoon from a deeper analysis of the myriad dangers facing German AFV crew during WW2, your curious fixation on "green-wheels," notwithstanding.