Erwin.Rommel
-
Posts
188 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Erwin.Rommel
-
-
The position of the turret seems a little behind
-
13 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
That is also a bug, but it has no relation to the M36 issue that I am aware of.
Is there any official response to this problem of M36?which AP is right?the Oct's or the Nov's?
just in my further test at Oct, the AP of M36 achieved the partial penetration on the upper front hull of panther at 1300m, this is far beyond the M77 can do, only T33 can achieve this.
-
1 hour ago, snarre said:
well i meaned whit this apcr that mayby there is wrong ammo used , sou normal ap ammo have same penetration value than apcr.
Acording to the US's test, the T30E16 only can penetrate the panther's upper hull front at 470yards, but the T33 APBC can achieved this at 1300 yards, maybe the BFC give the T33 APBC to M36 at Oct?
-
11 hours ago, SgtHatred said:
That's a good point. I haven't witnessed any other odd penetration issues. I am extrapolating from this post.
If the M36 models that suffer from the "exploding AP shell" have weaker penetration, but the M36s that don't suffer from it have fine penetration, it stands to reason that other vehicles that suffer from the same problem also have reduced penetration, but again I have no direct evidence of other vehicles suffering.
No, these are different bugs, the exploding AP is not related to the penetration value. For the M36, I suppose, the different penetration value is caued by different ammo that maybe the BFC's mistake.
Quote -
21 hours ago, snarre said:
i think m36 using apcra ammo ewen its not listed on unit ammo. sou mayby its sooting then on octber only thous.
No,that's not true. the 90mm T30E16 HVAP(APCR) first been delivered to ETO with the T26E3 tank in operation Zebra
-
I just test the M36 vs panther and Kingtiger, used the same test map, when I set the time in Oct, In about 200m,Every AP that hit the upper hull front achieved the penetration, when vs Kingtiger, the AP penetrated the lower front hull at about 600m. However, the I set the time to Nov, Dec, Jan, The AP rounds can not achieved any penetration in the same place of armor.
I also oberseved that the ricochet AP rounds of Oct will not exploded when hit the ground, but the AP rounds of Nov Dec Jan exploded in the same situation.
So I guess the M36 used M77 AP rounds in Oct, and used M82 APCBC in Nov Dec and Jan, because compared to the M82, the solid M77 AP can better deal with the slope armor plate.
Am I right,BFC?
-
-
Just we can see from the picture, In the game, compare to the real one , the right side of the turret is too vertical .
since sherman 76 is my favorate tank in WW2, I real hope I can get a accurate model. so any chance we get a little fix?
-
I upload the save of the replay, at 29:23-29:20, the JPIV's 75mm round Ricochet from the Jumbo's upper front hull then hit the ground and explode, the explosion injury the US FO at hundreds of metres.
-
12 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:
A number of types of AP shot in use carried small bursting charges, but I don't have a list of which ones. Plus, I wonder if the initial ricochetting strike should be enough to detonate them. In any event, I wouldn't expect them to be powerful enough to do more damage to personnel than, say, a hand grenade.
Michael
"Ricocheting APHE will not explode where it finally lands (the fuse is considered damaged)"
This is an important fix which was specifically mentioned in the readme of the 1.01update of CMRT(also in CMBN).
-
22 hours ago, snarre said:
i notice this too but it happend only when m36 shooted , sou 90 mm gun ammo do this.
I test all the rounds with charge, it happen in all of them.
-
I recall in the latest update of CMBN and CMRT, the AP shell(with charge) will not explode when hit the ground after ricochet from enemy armor, and this is one of the very important improvement in the new update. But in the CMFB, this improvement is missing, the ricochet again explode when hit the ground and hurt infantry in a very long distance. So, a Bug?
-
also the minor shade issue with the PZIV's schurzen I noticed before(steve promise to fix in the next patch) still exist with the 3.0 update
see the link and picture below
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114602
-
When I turn the shade on, the the shadows on the vehicles disappeared when it be seen from some angel. these issues exist both in CMBN 3.0 and CMFI 3.0(with the new 3.0 shade hotfix), but not exist in the CMRT, the old shader fixer(the one that installed with the mod tools) don't have this issue. See the photo below
turn shade on, shadow disappear
turn shade off, shadow appear
-
I am much busier at work than expected , so eventually I won´t have time for a version 2 of the T-34s,...at least for some time. In the meantime, I simply fixed the "Late 44" as pointed out by Erwin.Rommel,...So, if you fell like it, download, extract to Z and overwrite.
Thanks.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/38783558/Aris%20T-34_85%20Mod.44%20Late%20CMRT%20HotFix.zip
Anyway, really thank you Aris! could you replace the old version in the cmmods? some of my friends also want to download it, but they could not easily reach the BFC forum. Thx!
-
You will get an update sir.
Thank you aris! really can't wait!
-
First this is a real amazing work, but there are something wrong with the side of the turret.
As we all know that T34/85 1944(late) add a Electric motor to drive the rotate of turret, So there are some shape change on the side of the turret comparing to the T34/85 1944(early) as you can see in the picture below.
In the BFC's orignal texture, the shape changes are correctly presented as you can see in the picture below
But in the Aris's work, these shape changes are missing
Aris, can we get a update with this?
-
7% is high probability?
actually the 10%, and for the upper hull front of panther, theoretically 85mm APBC should never penetrate it if there is no armor flaw. Use the index given by the CMBB, the 85mmAPBC penetrate 51mm/60 in 500m, the panther has 80mm/55 glacis, for the vast gap, and for something that should never happened, 10% is really a high probability.
-
Do the same tests with PantherA(mid)
among 97 hits on the upper hull front, only 1 partial penetration.
-
Just do some statistical tests with 8 x T-34/85 m1944(early) vs 8 x PantherG, the range is about 600m
8 rounds of tests
Among 131 hits on the upper front hull
9 complete penetration and 4 partial penetration and among the 13 complete or partial penetration, only 4 on the edge of glacis or near the bow maching gun, all other happened in the center place of glacis.
My friends did the same test in the CMBB, no penetration on the upper front hull at all, Then which one is right? the CMBB or CMRT?Was the glacis of PantherG's Armor really that flaw? As far as I know, there are no resouces of WWII armor and ammo including the lorrin's great book which said 85mm APBC have a high probability of penetration on the glacis of PantherG, then what is basis that you make the glacis of pantherG that flaw in the CMRT?
So, Don't avoid these debates,give us some explains, BFC!
-
And further tests with 85mm vs Panther G shows more penetration on the glacis, then give us a explain,BFC!
-
Do the same test again an again, still see the same results.
these are the early version of T34 I used in my tests with no APCR
these two pictures shows the superstructure been penatrated.
This picture also shows a very strange hit in the tests, how to explains this?
-
But whether the ballistic cap is more or less effective depends on the target's armor composition (more effective against face-hardened IIRC), and on the angle.
Just note: the "ballistic cap" should be replaced by the "capped"
-
Thanks for testing the 76mm, kip.
Note that according to the manual, only the ausf Gs have flawed armor in the game. I have done small scale testing vs late ausf As and have yet to see 85mm APBC do more than scratch the paint on the glacis plate.
your tests in accordance to my result. all the penetration on the glacis was achieved with the Ausf G
The model of the BMP2 had some errors since the CMSF1
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted · Edited by Erwin.Rommel
refuted? really?
PS: the anger of the turret armor is not right either