Matrix Games Forums

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

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.

ORIGINAL: gbem

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

actually its
1. steel beasts
2. calculation on cross sectional area based on the image from steel beasts using the length of the tank as an approximate "ruler"

far more accurate "feelings" though no true substitute for a professionally done calculations

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.

vasily fofanov quotes it at 60%... havent seen data on K5 coverage from tankograd... regardless that is simply K5 coverage and does not include protection performance against a round...

the one you have linked for the T-80 against the DM33 is a good one but only accounts for the crew compartment without accounting for the whole cross sectional area of the vehicle... and therefore is a biased calculation for the purpose of this game...

Kontakt-5 is effective against KE penetrators. It is supposed to be able to reduce the effectiveness of sabots up to 40% and T-80U armor estimates all take it into consideration.

ORIGINAL: gbem

Kontakt-5 is effective against KE penetrators. It is supposed to be able to reduce the effectiveness of sabots up to 40% and T-80U armor estimates all take it into consideration.

20% effective against KE penetrators... relikt is the one rated at 40% effective... regardless the improved protection of the Object 219 turret is capable of defeating the DM-33 without K5 at certain portions of the turret as you see with the very image youve sent...

here

Kontakt-5

The estimates for the effectiveness of K-5 vary wildly, some say 40%, some say 20%, some 30% and there might be some truth to all of them as newer rounds are designed to specifically defeat K-5 while older rounds are much more affected by them.

The estimates for the effectiveness of K-5 vary wildly, some say 40%, some say 20%, some 30% and there might be some truth to all of them as newer rounds are designed to specifically defeat K-5 while older rounds are much more affected by them.

Anyway, the point is Steel Beasts is hardly a source to take as gospel. You wouldn't be making the game closer to reality, just closer to Steel Beasts.

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.

ORIGINAL: gbem

im simply asking for 2 new armor values... a per tank basis frontal weakspot percent chance and a weakspot armor value... not an overall reduction of hit chance to 5%... that ways vehicles with smaller like the leopard 2a4 and T-80U are given their appropriate weakspot value (6%) but also allow for low penetration guns (200+KE effective) to go through some of those tanks (T-80U) all the while sparing tanks like that have less weak weakspots (400+ KE effective)(leopard 2a4)... meanwhile tanks with bigger weakspots like the abrams can sit at higher percentage chances

ORIGINAL: gbem

if not then at the very least let the weakspot chance be moddable... that ways we can all be happy until multiplayer is added... in which case id be a strong contender for a more realistic model than a 15% universal number

This would be a big task to add especially with the database size and IMO there are more important tasks to focus on for the devs such as pathfinding, cell 1 unit limit etc. but if they are willing to do it in the future and they find it is worth the effort then maybe.

Yes I think point 2, the weakspot % chance being modable would make everybody happy

Cheers

ORIGINAL: 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.

ORIGINAL: 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?

Hard to be objective, we all have bias. We are slaved to what data there is and much of it is grey. The database for AB is really good when I compare to my sources, which are the same sources as everyone else. I have found some data that I corrected based on the weight of other sources. For example, small caliber HEI that had NO AP rating (Marder 20mm), incorrect missile speeds (TOW's AB rated for 178 mps/ actual 320 mps) and the 73mm 2A28 early warhead with a range of 1200 meters (should be 9000-1000) to name some. You can't expect the Dev's to get it all right but AB is very close 90% of the time in my opinion. That's why we can mod the data base.

ORIGINAL: gbem



yeah but this statement "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." is inherently false... some soviet rounds are even underperforming in fact in accordance to the odermatt equation