Jump to content

The Green Rascal

Members
  • Posts

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

The Green Rascal's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Well this thread has been kicking around for a week now and seems to have finished. I am disappointed that no-one from BFC could be bothered to take the time to comment in it, although they have been posting around it. There was a lot of good points here, and one or two questions which would not have taken too much time to answer. FWIW I returned CMAK to the store today, before their no-quibbles returns policy expired. I purchased it specifically for the Desert War battles, having played the hell out of CMBO and CMBB, so an accurate simulation of 2pdrs v's Panzers, and the resultant tactics required, was the core component of the game for me. If it is ever patched, or the code is released into the public domain (also FWIW) I'll certainly re-purchase. However, as there seems to be no interest in even discussing the issues presented, I ain't holding my breath.
  2. Well this thread has been kicking around for a week now and seems to have finished. I am disappointed that no-one from BFC could be bothered to take the time to comment in it, although they have been posting around it. There was a lot of good points here, and one or two questions which would not have taken too much time to answer. FWIW I returned CMAK to the store today, before their no-quibbles returns policy expired. I purchased it specifically for the Desert War battles, having played the hell out of CMBO and CMBB, so an accurate simulation of 2pdrs v's Panzers, and the resultant tactics required, was the core component of the game for me. If it is ever patched, or the code is released into the public domain (also FWIW) I'll certainly re-purchase. However, as there seems to be no interest in even discussing the issues presented, I ain't holding my breath.
  3. GAAAK! Not only is there nothing significantly wrong with the way CMAK models the 2pdr, CMAK models it ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY. I thought we had clearly established that earlier :mad: I have tested, I have quoted, and if somone can come back with something concrete which flys in the face of the evidence given, I'll certainly reconsider. However the PZIII vulnerability at long range is ahistorical, check my stats if you think 2pdrs don't hurt them in CMAK. Let's have some good sources saying PZIIIs actually were killed frontally over 500m to redress the balance please.
  4. GAAAK! Not only is there nothing significantly wrong with the way CMAK models the 2pdr, CMAK models it ABSOLUTELY PERFECTLY. I thought we had clearly established that earlier :mad: I have tested, I have quoted, and if somone can come back with something concrete which flys in the face of the evidence given, I'll certainly reconsider. However the PZIII vulnerability at long range is ahistorical, check my stats if you think 2pdrs don't hurt them in CMAK. Let's have some good sources saying PZIIIs actually were killed frontally over 500m to redress the balance please.
  5. Sorry guys but you are looking at it the wrong way. Jason, all your test does is prove that a Cruiser is worse than the PZIIIH. No suprise and no dispute there, a Cruiser is worse than a PZIII for sure, and a PZIII can kill them more often at longer ranges. It says nothing about 2 pdrs killing PZIIIs. Try moving PZIIIs towards 2 pdr AT guns, or Matildas for example. If a 2pdr is on a chassis or in a position where it has a good chance of surviving, it will start killing PZIIIs out to 1200m. Even cruisers have a fair chance of killing them as well, but will probably lose more than they kill. Blah it doesn't matter what the percentage hit chance is, the issue is whether a 2pdr could kill PZIIIs when it hit them at medium-long range, IE how often the hit would result in a kill. We have many sources which say things like a 2pdr could only do 'trivial damage' to a PZ III over 500m. Rexford - on question if I may, do you think that 80% of turret hits penetrating the front of a PZIII over 1000m is a reasonable percentage both in terms of the physical make up of the turret, and it's armour thickness v's a 2pdrs penetration capability at that range. IE. does a lower mantlet cover 80% of a turret front, and is it really that vulnerable anyway at that distance. I find it hard to believe that all these sources are plain wrong. I also find it more than a coincidence that if the curved armour was resisting at 1.75 average, it would give is a perfect match for the Cairo tests and 2pdr penetrations around 500m would also start to fall away dramatically, confirming the sources. ISTM that curved armour is resisiting much lower than that, but of course only BFC know for sure, and I unfortunately doubt that they will advise the figure, or revise it either. I have now stopped playing desert tank battles, but Sicily and Italy are fun anyway
  6. Sorry guys but you are looking at it the wrong way. Jason, all your test does is prove that a Cruiser is worse than the PZIIIH. No suprise and no dispute there, a Cruiser is worse than a PZIII for sure, and a PZIII can kill them more often at longer ranges. It says nothing about 2 pdrs killing PZIIIs. Try moving PZIIIs towards 2 pdr AT guns, or Matildas for example. If a 2pdr is on a chassis or in a position where it has a good chance of surviving, it will start killing PZIIIs out to 1200m. Even cruisers have a fair chance of killing them as well, but will probably lose more than they kill. Blah it doesn't matter what the percentage hit chance is, the issue is whether a 2pdr could kill PZIIIs when it hit them at medium-long range, IE how often the hit would result in a kill. We have many sources which say things like a 2pdr could only do 'trivial damage' to a PZ III over 500m. Rexford - on question if I may, do you think that 80% of turret hits penetrating the front of a PZIII over 1000m is a reasonable percentage both in terms of the physical make up of the turret, and it's armour thickness v's a 2pdrs penetration capability at that range. IE. does a lower mantlet cover 80% of a turret front, and is it really that vulnerable anyway at that distance. I find it hard to believe that all these sources are plain wrong. I also find it more than a coincidence that if the curved armour was resisting at 1.75 average, it would give is a perfect match for the Cairo tests and 2pdr penetrations around 500m would also start to fall away dramatically, confirming the sources. ISTM that curved armour is resisiting much lower than that, but of course only BFC know for sure, and I unfortunately doubt that they will advise the figure, or revise it either. I have now stopped playing desert tank battles, but Sicily and Italy are fun anyway
  7. Thanks Mark, another historical article to go into the 'ineffective' camp. It is difficult for me to see exactly how many penetrations are resulting in knockouts because of the death clock and all the 2pdr shots hitting the turret fronts in rapid sucession. The best time for me to see it is when the test starts and the first hits go in. Although this doesn't give me as big a sample, it seems that around 40-50% of penetrations result in knockouts, 10-20% crew casualties, 30-40% have no effect. Even 'partial penetrations' can result in knockouts. I think the best way of surmising how likely it is that a penetration will result in a knockout of the PZIII at 1000m is by using what the LOS tool says - i.e. FAIR. And as we have seen above, there is a massive 80% chance that any hit will penetrate the turret front. It doesn't make sense, and is giving us a very different simulation to what we might expect from reading history. Sorry BFC, but I am now thinking we have a problem which needs addressing if you wish to produce a reasonable facsimile of desert tank warfare in 1941-1942. [Edit] A simple solution which occurs, and would work with our sources, would be to multiply the resistance to hits of curved armour by 1.75 + (random number between -0.75 and 0.75). This would give a PZIII turret front an average resistance to 2pdrs at 500m at 52mm as per the Cairo tests, and make it apparent why so many say that was the limit of effective 2pdr range. The random number would also allow for hits on the lower mantlet at further ranges. [ December 06, 2003, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: The Green Rascal ]
  8. Thanks Mark, another historical article to go into the 'ineffective' camp. It is difficult for me to see exactly how many penetrations are resulting in knockouts because of the death clock and all the 2pdr shots hitting the turret fronts in rapid sucession. The best time for me to see it is when the test starts and the first hits go in. Although this doesn't give me as big a sample, it seems that around 40-50% of penetrations result in knockouts, 10-20% crew casualties, 30-40% have no effect. Even 'partial penetrations' can result in knockouts. I think the best way of surmising how likely it is that a penetration will result in a knockout of the PZIII at 1000m is by using what the LOS tool says - i.e. FAIR. And as we have seen above, there is a massive 80% chance that any hit will penetrate the turret front. It doesn't make sense, and is giving us a very different simulation to what we might expect from reading history. Sorry BFC, but I am now thinking we have a problem which needs addressing if you wish to produce a reasonable facsimile of desert tank warfare in 1941-1942. [Edit] A simple solution which occurs, and would work with our sources, would be to multiply the resistance to hits of curved armour by 1.75 + (random number between -0.75 and 0.75). This would give a PZIII turret front an average resistance to 2pdrs at 500m at 52mm as per the Cairo tests, and make it apparent why so many say that was the limit of effective 2pdr range. The random number would also allow for hits on the lower mantlet at further ranges. [ December 06, 2003, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: The Green Rascal ]
  9. Another vote for desert skies, and please specifically without mountains below them as they look totally out of place in the pre-43 Desert War. I'm starting to get the feeling we're battling inside Mordor not on the plains of Egypt, and I'm a bit worried I might accidentally squash the ringbearer with a Matilda before I get to see Episode III in the cinema. Who was the guy who recently released those superb CMBB sky mods, and does he take cash bribes?
  10. Again many thanks to everyone helping out here. If anyone is still in doubt may I reiterate that we have now proved with many sources that CMAKs 2pdr penetration figures are absolutely right on the mark. Regarding the PzIII turret front, I re-ran the test a few times tonight and made the effort of noting down the results of hits all of which occurred between 1000-1100m. An interesting indication of what followed was a 2pdr's chances of killing PZIIIs at 1000m plus, which according to the LOS tool were 'FAIR'. I noted 43 hits on the turret front of the PZIIIs at @1000m. 9 were ricochets, 10 were partial penetrations, 22 were penetrations, 2 were penetrations at weak points and 1 was a gun hit. Percentage wise it works out as follows: Penetrations..........................50% Partial Penetrations................23% Ricochets...............................20% Penetrations at weak points.....5% Gun hits................................2% Our evidence so far suggests that if a PZIII could be killed over 500m it would probably require a hit on the lower gun mantlet. I put forward the above figures to advise that in CMAK around 80% of turret hits by 2pdrs hitting over 1000m range get through to some degree, and 55% are very bad news indeed. Ricochets are in a small minority. Can we square this with our sources or with the physical makeup of a PZIII turret front? [ December 05, 2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: The Green Rascal ]
  11. Again many thanks to everyone helping out here. If anyone is still in doubt may I reiterate that we have now proved with many sources that CMAKs 2pdr penetration figures are absolutely right on the mark. Regarding the PzIII turret front, I re-ran the test a few times tonight and made the effort of noting down the results of hits all of which occurred between 1000-1100m. An interesting indication of what followed was a 2pdr's chances of killing PZIIIs at 1000m plus, which according to the LOS tool were 'FAIR'. I noted 43 hits on the turret front of the PZIIIs at @1000m. 9 were ricochets, 10 were partial penetrations, 22 were penetrations, 2 were penetrations at weak points and 1 was a gun hit. Percentage wise it works out as follows: Penetrations..........................50% Partial Penetrations................23% Ricochets...............................20% Penetrations at weak points.....5% Gun hits................................2% Our evidence so far suggests that if a PZIII could be killed over 500m it would probably require a hit on the lower gun mantlet. I put forward the above figures to advise that in CMAK around 80% of turret hits by 2pdrs hitting over 1000m range get through to some degree, and 55% are very bad news indeed. Ricochets are in a small minority. Can we square this with our sources or with the physical makeup of a PZIII turret front? [ December 05, 2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: The Green Rascal ]
  12. Aha! Breakthrough, I just realised MikeyD's figures are wrong. The 2pdr in CMAK has the following stats: 0 Degrees:...82mm@100m...52mm@500m...44mm@1000m...24mm@2000m. 30 Degrees:...52mm@100m...38mm@500m...36mm@1000m...24mm@2000m. Now then, this agrees with the penetration figures used for the Cairo tests, and the IWM document, so our 2pdr penetration numbers are straight and a big cheer for CMAK is due However it still does not explain why our first group of sources are saying that the 2pdr was ineffective v's PzIIIs over 500m and our second group are saying that it could kill them. So, I think we need to look at the PzIII armour instead, that must be the area where the discrepancy arises. I have a horrible feeling that it may turn into another 'curved' armour problem, as the turret front on PZIIIs is all '30mm Curved'. If the 30mm Curved is resisting at not much above 30mm, then the 2pdr penetrations above make it obvious that in CMAK PZIIIs are toast up to 1500m. If it resists as the Cairo test and Rexford advises at 52mm, then we get exactly a 500m cut off for penetrations, which would tie up a lot of our quotes nicely. So then, if anyone is till following the plot, I am now proposing that the 30mm Curved armour is where the problem is. And as for why I'm harping on, well it directly affects the gameplay and accuracy of the simulation. At the moment you don't need to close the range as it seems they were forced to do historically.
  13. Aha! Breakthrough, I just realised MikeyD's figures are wrong. The 2pdr in CMAK has the following stats: 0 Degrees:...82mm@100m...52mm@500m...44mm@1000m...24mm@2000m. 30 Degrees:...52mm@100m...38mm@500m...36mm@1000m...24mm@2000m. Now then, this agrees with the penetration figures used for the Cairo tests, and the IWM document, so our 2pdr penetration numbers are straight and a big cheer for CMAK is due However it still does not explain why our first group of sources are saying that the 2pdr was ineffective v's PzIIIs over 500m and our second group are saying that it could kill them. So, I think we need to look at the PzIII armour instead, that must be the area where the discrepancy arises. I have a horrible feeling that it may turn into another 'curved' armour problem, as the turret front on PZIIIs is all '30mm Curved'. If the 30mm Curved is resisting at not much above 30mm, then the 2pdr penetrations above make it obvious that in CMAK PZIIIs are toast up to 1500m. If it resists as the Cairo test and Rexford advises at 52mm, then we get exactly a 500m cut off for penetrations, which would tie up a lot of our quotes nicely. So then, if anyone is till following the plot, I am now proposing that the 30mm Curved armour is where the problem is. And as for why I'm harping on, well it directly affects the gameplay and accuracy of the simulation. At the moment you don't need to close the range as it seems they were forced to do historically.
  14. Ahem - back to the 2pdr then I remembered I had Ian Hogg's 20thC artillery book and have looked them up in there. Disappointingly he doesn't give penetration figures, but he does make this comment in the text: If he views them as a handicap, we can probably put him in the ineffective camp as well. However I have also searched the Imperial War Museum's online archive and was suprised by this 1942 document. After a brief and sometimes unkind description it states That is actually above CMAKs penetration figures. Unfortunately it doesn't specify the source, but if anyone is passing IWM Duxford in the next few days can you please pop in and have a look at it So IIRC at the moment we have the Cairo tests from Rexford, Pitt specifically ruling out it's effectiveness over 500m, Hogg's implications, Dragonwagon's very useful quotes, in opposition to Bastables report, Andreas' Macksey quote and now this IWM document. To muddy the water further we have possible mistakes in data tables and projectile shatter issues. Should keep us going for a little while longer then [ December 04, 2003, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: The Green Rascal ]
  15. Ahem - back to the 2pdr then I remembered I had Ian Hogg's 20thC artillery book and have looked them up in there. Disappointingly he doesn't give penetration figures, but he does make this comment in the text: If he views them as a handicap, we can probably put him in the ineffective camp as well. However I have also searched the Imperial War Museum's online archive and was suprised by this 1942 document. After a brief and sometimes unkind description it states That is actually above CMAKs penetration figures. Unfortunately it doesn't specify the source, but if anyone is passing IWM Duxford in the next few days can you please pop in and have a look at it So IIRC at the moment we have the Cairo tests from Rexford, Pitt specifically ruling out it's effectiveness over 500m, Hogg's implications, Dragonwagon's very useful quotes, in opposition to Bastables report, Andreas' Macksey quote and now this IWM document. To muddy the water further we have possible mistakes in data tables and projectile shatter issues. Should keep us going for a little while longer then [ December 04, 2003, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: The Green Rascal ]
×
×
  • Create New...