Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As I see it this topic is actually about what exactly is a 'partial penetration'.

 

This is how I understood it:

Partial_Penetration_reduced_size.gif

 

Shift, What is your exact definition of a partial penetration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A penetration is when the MAjority of the projectile passes freely thought the plate. If the round is lodged (as above) or fails completely break the interior armor, then its a PP. rounds that Hit and deflect are deflections, or just hits. 

 

But why ask me? The Americans gave their definition of this in Firing test No1 if Im not mistaken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what to say at this point. I understand your goal-lines but its starkly different from everyone else - who are using a far more practical baseline of what degrades the tank's combat performance. Its all well and good to say you are only counting 'clean penetrations' but when everyone is observing that 'settling for less' in the form of a partial-penetration still yields the desired results (in at least 30 percent of my tests of a 400 sample size - catastrophic kills), then arguing that the "76 is less effective than it should be" is based on a shaky premise at best. If it can knock out enemy armor within a handful of shots at excessive ranges despite the lack of clean penetrations then its sufficient to conclude that the 76 is good enough. I also think its counter intuitive to be barking on about your sources when others have pointed out notable issues with your interpretation of said sources and have even given their own sources to back up their criticisms. 

 

Really now. I enjoy the entire premise of the thread and the conversation you've generated but you've been responding to everyone with empty exasperation and snark for simple suggestions about your methodology.

 

In short, of all the flavors, you chose to cook with salt.

Cook with salt? I think you are reading far too much into my statements. 

 

Exasperated? Yes. How many times do I have to spell out that this isn't about the general effectiveness of the gun? It never was. Its also obvious from your last post that you get what I mean too, but keep pushing this idea that the general effectiveness is what matters. To put it simply, the purpose of this thread when I made it was to go over the BALLISTIC realism, not the general combat capability of the two tanks. If you dont care, so long as you can still effectively kill tigers, that obviously your prerogative. But to me it continuously pushing that agenda is a derailment of the thread purpose. Not to mention that if more rounds cleanly penetrated we'd have an entirely different ballgame going on regarding how good the 76mm is vs the Tiger. Instead of 30% kills, you might see over 50%. 

 

There is no salt. And there is no snark. I just don't see why I should have to regurgitate the same thing 3-4 times before people get what I'm saying. It hinders the rest of the conversation whenever someone trys to dismiss the issue by going "See? its A-Ok, I can still kill Tigers so who cares?" You dont see how I might be Slightly agitated by that? But its whatever, lets just move on with the rest of this conversation. 

 

Also you are the same Rinaldi who scrims with the 2SS right? 113th cav or somehting?

Edited by shift8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also you are the same Rinaldi who scrims with the 2SS right? 113th cav or somehting?

 

Now there's something I haven't seen in a while. A time ago, yes.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shift8, do you play H2H?

Edit: I'm not an armor grog and I should just STFU and follow this thread. Shift8, if you ever want to play a QB PBEM with me, you can have Axis, I'll take Yanks and we can do an AAR here. :-)

Edited by Doug Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Those numbers arent that much diferent from than what I posted........

 

Right. Well, except that you didn't list your results by in-game category and you didn't have a control group to determine if your results were from shatter gap or something else.

 

Seriously, I spend three hours of my time determining how shatter gap relates to your concerns and your response is "Huh?". I won't be doing that again.

 

You cant count a PP as a penetration......The round hasn't gone through the armor-----just because it can cause damage does not matter.

 

And here's the crux of the matter. Most of my thoughts on this have been written by others. I will add that it appears to me that you don't really have a problem with ballistics modeling in CM. You have a problem with labels.

 

I don't know for sure what the difference is between a "Penetration" and a "Partial Penetration" in CM, but my impression from years of observing after armor effects in CM is that they are essentially the same thing except that one has more residual energy than the other. PPs in-game are definitely penetrations into the interior, not bulges or cracks; those fall under the Spalling category. PPs destroy tanks, spalling does not, therefore in game terms the dividing line between success and failure lies there.

 

BFC could solve your concerns by simply eliminating the partial penetration hit text and calling them penetrations while leaving the ballistics unchanged.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Well, except that you didn't list your results by in-game category and you didn't have a control group to determine if your results were from shatter gap or something else.

 

Seriously, I spend three hours of my time determining how shatter gap relates to your concerns and your response is "Huh?". I won't be doing that again.

 

 

And here's the crux of the matter. Most of my thoughts on this have been written by others. I will add that it appears to me that you don't really have a problem with ballistics modeling in CM. You have a problem with labels.

 

I don't know for sure what the difference is between a "Penetration" and a "Partial Penetration" in CM, but my impression from years of observing after armor effects in CM is that they are essentially the same thing except that one has more residual energy than the other. PPs in-game are definitely penetrations into the interior, not bulges or cracks; those fall under the Spalling category. PPs destroy tanks, spalling does not, therefore in game terms the dividing line between success and failure lies there.

 

BFC could solve your concerns by simply eliminating the partial penetration hit text and calling them penetrations while leaving the ballistics unchanged.

 

Your taking my "Huh" far too personally dude. Thanks for doing the tests, but from my perspective they didnt tell me anything we didnt already know, so I didnt really understand why you were using data very similar to my own to make an entirely opposite conclusion. Thats what the Huh was for. I appreciate you taking the time to test for yourself, my "huh" derives from your use of the data, not the gathering of it. 

 

As for partial penetrations, I just cant see how you can see them that way. It doesnt make sense. I mean, aside from the definitions given by the US and others, its not logically sound IMO. The "energy" of the round being the function of PP is not reasonable, since that would already fall into the damage modeling of full pens. Even shells that made it all the way through would do so at differing velocities, affecting their results, and separating PP and P based on that would be highly misleading. It would be like calling a bullet that missed by 5 feet a miss, and a bullet that misses by 10 a partial-miss. 

 

I mean, the word itself is self-explanatory. a PARTIAL penetration PARTIALLY makes it way through the armor and is lodged there is some form. World war Two definitions of this term corroborate this, so why would BF just make up their own? It seems to me that you guys who think this way are more interested adjusting the semantics so that you don't have to acknowledge a potential problem (or at least something we don't understand) with the game. There simply isnt any other reason to presume PP's are complete penetrations IMO unless your trying to make things fit in a certain manner. It just doesn't make any sense. You start twisting the words that much and pretty soon it will be impossible to make any sort of definitive statement about anything.

 

And as for them destroying tanks: The do NOT most of the time, just judging my experience and Rinaldis 30% figure from earlier, 70% of them don't do enough to kill the tank. There is a perfectly good reason to have separate PP, P, and Spalling decals. They are not the same things. A hit that strike the armor and carries on it merry way can still cause the armor to spall. Spalling is an effect, not a type of strike. A Partial Pen is a type of strike, specially one where the round is lodge in the armor. You MIGHT get a very massive "spalling" effect from that, since a round that is poking it head through the armor, or has almost made it way through is likely to send a hell of alot of materiel into the tank. In fact, Im prerry sure you can get PP's spalling at the same time, if not in CMx2 CMx1. 

Edited by shift8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above, page 4, Shift8 wrote that a penetration is when a projectile passes through the armor. That's not really how it works. Usually, if there is visible light through the armor, then it counts as a penetration. Some of the criteria changes based on country and time. US in WWII, you had to see light.

 

Any light. Even a pinhole. Light = penetration. Kinda makes sense.

 

If a 76mm shell "penetrated", that doesn't mean there was a 76mm hole in the armor and a spent 76mm round sizzling on the ground. Usually spalling liners were used to collect the many fragments which either spalled off the armor, or were the result of the armor being displaced, or were the fragments of the shell which passed through the armor. They'd be weighed and categorized and the data thereby gained would be added into the report.

 

So, "penetration" may not mean much energy was left. If the shell overmatched the armor by a narrow margin, and it was solid shot, then (other than the poor bastard right behind the path), the tank and crew had fairly good odds of surviving unscathed.

 

Ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above, page 4, Shift8 wrote that a penetration is when a projectile passes through the armor. That's not really how it works. Usually, if there is visible light through the armor, then it counts as a penetration. Some of the criteria changes based on country and time. US in WWII, you had to see light.

 

Any light. Even a pinhole. Light = penetration. Kinda makes sense.

 

If a 76mm shell "penetrated", that doesn't mean there was a 76mm hole in the armor and a spent 76mm round sizzling on the ground. Usually spalling liners were used to collect the many fragments which either spalled off the armor, or were the result of the armor being displaced, or were the fragments of the shell which passed through the armor. They'd be weighed and categorized and the data thereby gained would be added into the report.

 

So, "penetration" may not mean much energy was left. If the shell overmatched the armor by a narrow margin, and it was solid shot, then (other than the poor bastard right behind the path), the tank and crew had fairly good odds of surviving unscathed.

 

Ken

In the Link I already posted on that very same page, that army defines what you are refering  to as a "complete" penetration, where light is visible but they projectile did not pass through. A Partial Pen is defined as where no light is visible, just a bulge. So far is the definition of penetration for test purposes, all nations (USA included) required that all or most of the projectile completely pass through the plate to be considered a success for making AP tables. 

Edited by shift8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your taking my "Huh" far too personally dude. Thanks for doing the tests, but from my perspective they didnt tell me anything we didnt already know, so I didnt really understand why you were using data very similar to my own to make an entirely opposite conclusion.

So you already knew the results we are seeing have little or nothing to do with shatter gap? Is that why you were going on about how shatter gap was too "extreme" in the game? Because that is what my tests revealed and I am pretty sure you had no idea.

 

I mean, the word itself is self-explanatory. a PARTIAL penetration PARTIALLY makes it way through the armor and is lodged there is some form.

 

A Partial Pen is defined as where no light is visible, just a bulge.

 

Which is it? Make up your mind!

:P

 

There are actually three types of "penetrations" defined in your link:

 

PTP = Projectile passes through plate.

CP = Complete Penetration – projectile failed to pass through plate, but light visible through hole or crack in plate.

PP = Partial Penetration – failure to make crack or hole in plate through which light3 is visible.

Army definition    CM equivalent 
   PTP                Penetration
   CP                 Partial Penetration
   PP                 Spalling

But I'll tell you what, because I don't like seeing good data go to waste I will report my tests to BFC and ask if everything looks kosher. I can justify that on the lack of shatter gap alone. There is also a small but not insignificant difference between the observed penetration rate and the expected rate for that penetration/resistance ratio as defined in WW2 Ballistics.

 

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

There are actually three types of "penetrations" defined in your link:

PTP = Projectile passes through plate.

CP = Complete Penetration – projectile failed to pass through plate, but light visible through hole or crack in plate.

PP = Partial Penetration – failure to make crack or hole in plate through which light3 is visible.

Army definition    CM equivalent 
   PTP                Penetration
   CP                 Partial Penetration
   PP                 Spalling

Vanir's table explains, I think, why we all appear to have been talking at cross-purposes, shift8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you already knew the results we are seeing have little or nothing to do with shatter gap? Is that why you were going on about how shatter gap was too "extreme" in the game? Because that is what my tests revealed and I am pretty sure you had no idea.

 

 

 

Which is it? Make up your mind!

:P

 

There are actually three types of "penetrations" defined in your link:

 

PTP = Projectile passes through plate.

CP = Complete Penetration – projectile failed to pass through plate, but light visible through hole or crack in plate.

PP = Partial Penetration – failure to make crack or hole in plate through which light3 is visible.

Army definition    CM equivalent 
   PTP                Penetration
   CP                 Partial Penetration
   PP                 Spalling

But I'll tell you what, because I don't like seeing good data go to waste I will report my tests to BFC and ask if everything looks kosher. I can justify that on the lack of shatter gap alone. There is also a small but not insignificant difference between the observed penetration rate and the expected rate for that penetration/resistance ratio as defined in WW2 Ballistics.

 

To your first quote: I already stated several posts ago that given how both guns performed in your tests there might be something else going on. Although I was already aware of the Pz4 gun being use as a control from your extremely similar tests in the thread "M10s kill Tiger 1 from 800m" which I had read before this thread. I didnt give that much thought I the time though since your conclusion then was that there was in fact some shatter gap, since your results in that thread led you to from thinking it wasnt in game at the beginning, to thinking it was to some degree in the end, and as I recall it was specifically due to the Pz4 gun. 

 

Specifically this is the bit I read,

 

"Conclusions

1) My initial statement that there is no shatter gap in CMx2 appears to have been incorrect. Probably. This conclusion rests on the validity of using the Panzer IV as a close approximation of the US 76mm. I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be but I may have overlooked something.

The shatter gap in the game is much more subdued than Rexford's book suggests. I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, although the almost complete lack of shatter gap against the Panther mantet at 500 meters is a little troubling given real world US test results that showed no penetrations of the mantlet at that range.

2) Hits on the Panther mantlet never produce spalling. Odd.

3) Although I was not testing for it specifically I couldn't help but notice that there was not one single ricochet off of the Panther shot trap down onto the hull. Not one. This was in 544 recorded hits. If you include "weapon" hits that I didn't record the total sample size was well over 600. This is an issue that has been around since the game came out and was supposedly fixed in the 1.11 patch:

Panther "shot trap" on the lower turret mantlet (potentially) deflects shots downward into the hull as expected.

Apparently not. "

 

 

 

Also can you point out where Rexford gives some kind of definitive percentage of what hits should shatter? As far as I can tell, he only gets a range where it could MAY shatter, since he uses the words "suggests" and "may" in reference too it, and I dont see a single place in his book that says anything remotely like "X percent of rounds falling into this GAP will shatter and fail" In fact, he stated elsewhere on this forums if Im not mistaken that the problem was specifically with rounds made from Chevrolet, only 1 three manufacturers, which would imply that it would be a problem less often than not. 

 

 

As to your second part, there are two possibilities but I disagree with the conclusion you come to:

 

PTP = P  (that I agree.)

 

BUT CP and PP in CM either both fall under PP, or CP alone falls under P. 

 

PP is not spalling. Spalling is not a form of strike. It is a after effect that ALL forms of strike might cause, but it gets noted in CM have deflections (ie: hits) because it is a way of noting something bad happened when there was otherwise no breach. 

 

You can have spalling IRL after a hit, or a PP, the degree to which it happens after a PP will potentially be more severe. Also note that in CMx2, spalling occurs mainly after ricocheting strikes. (ie: not lodged in the armor, creating massive internal bulges, and therefore not consistent with the army def of PP)

 

 

We have 3 types of STRIKE in CM. They describe the what happened to the projectile: NOT THE DAMAGE. Note that different forms of damage can be caused, but only in the case of a HIT, does it have its own damage message. Most likely since most people would be wondering why the damage might have occurs to a crew member when the game just told them the round bounced. In the other two cases, its not necessary to spell that out, since potential damage is obvious, and more variable in nature. 

 

HIT---Rounds that bounce off entirely. (MAY result in spalling of a very mild nature)

 

PARTIAL PENETRATION---rounds that make it part of the way through the armor. (May cause massive spalling, or (if we include the army CP) bits of shell fragment. Hence why this can kill tanks)

 

PENETRATION---Projectile passed completely through the armor. (Could kill tank, note the game doesnt find it necessary to tell you that you got a "gear box hit", in the case of P and PP, it assumes you know damage occured)

 

 

Seems to me like Battlefront used different words to mean different things. Nobody is going to logically call somewhat less energetic PTP's Partial Penetrations. For one, it would be a totally unnecessary distinction, since damage done, or not done is already a metric for that. And it would be linguistically retarded. 

Edited by shift8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I digress, this is going nowhere so:

 

Admittedly, I had simply presumed BFC's implementation of what I presumed to be SG was modeled directly from WW2BnG. But, after looking at that book more, Rexford doesn't seem to actually say anything whatsoever about how often the rounds should fail, only that there might be a range between which they might. 

 

Given your testing Vanir, I wont say there isn't any Gap, but given the Pz4 results, something else is at work here (something I stated many posts ago).

 

So then, why are the Pz4 and Sherman failing against the Tiger front? T-34-85 does it too. All 3 guns should pen (more frequently) so far as I see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why does BFC have to use US Army definition of penetration? From a game design standpoint, it is the least useful.

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/347020-the-definition-of-penetration/

 

 

Exactly! The "physicist" would demand 100% mass through the armor 100% of the time to declare that "x penetrates y". The user doesn't care: he just wants the damn target to stop working.

 

There's a lot of gradation between the two...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly! The "physicist" would demand 100% mass through the armor 100% of the time to declare that "x penetrates y". The user doesn't care: he just wants the damn target to stop working.

 

There's a lot of gradation between the two...

If you want a conversation on whether or not a gun that PP's all the time is effective, start your own thread. This one isnt about that. For the Billionth time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a conversation on whether or not a gun that PP's all the time is effective, start your own thread. This one isnt about that. For the Billionth time. 

 

Less salt, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...