Jeff Duquette
-
Posts
1,389 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jeff Duquette
-
-
Don't Buy from AviaPress Web Site!!
Their website claims to have a lot of very nice Russian Publications on Tanks, Aircraft, Ships, etc. However, they are notorious for not filling orders. I have ordered magazines on Russian tanks from AviaPress on three different occasions over the last two years and have only received one of the orders. The problem is they will bill your credit card or paypal account upon you placing the order rather than when they fill and mail the order. You get charged and never get your order.
They do not respond to order inquires or any questions sent to them -- like “where's the stuff I paid for”.
They are disreputable, dishonest, belly crawling, internet thieves. I plan on repeating this forum post on every forum I attend.
Rant complete -- have a nice day.
Regards
J.Duquette
[ May 03, 2008, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]
-
...looks rather painful. It appears like I will need to monkey with the dongel configuration, direct-x, and my anti-virus software settings. I suppose the direct-x bit has me a tad worried in how this will affect play for other games on my system. I don't seem to have any issues with other games and Vista -- to include ToW.
On the Israeli teflon coating...I assume this was an LRP you are talking about?
-
Presumably this would also imply that if one of my tanks is in a hull-down position, I won't be seeing very many hull penetrations or track hits or the like.Originally posted by Sneaksie:Whoa...
Well, in addition i must confirm that every angle of hit in the game is calculated in 3D space, but it's only the beginning.
This is the reason for normalizing penetration data into the form of t/d.Originally posted by Sneaksie:If shell caliber is much more than armor thickness, it will just crush through it.
An under-matching event will result in a different plate failure mode than an over-matching event. For example, blunt projectiles are very efficient when perforating under-matching plates (a low t/d event). They are much more efficient than an ogival shaped armor piercing projectile nose in low t/d events. However this advantage progressively declines as t/d increases until at a certain point the ogival nosed AP projectile becomes the more efficient penetrator.
Things such as slope effects plate hardness, armor quality or armor types perform differently under differing t/d ratios. If they did not, than those graphs I posted above would be simple horizontal lines rather than curves -- i.e. a horizontal line would indicate slope effect and the like are independent of t/d (which they are not).
Yes. A limit velocity -- regardless of who was conducting the trials: German, USSR, USA, UK -- is always equated with a probability of penetration or perforation. But an in depth discussion of penetration\perforation probabilities combined with a long discussion on the merits (or lake thereof) of the often cited "cosine rule" would have only succeeded in confusing the issue.Originally posted by Sneaksie:All these 'it may' is not some randomize function, it happens due to angle, type of shell, type of detonator, caliber, armor thickness, etc.
Best Regards
JD
-
I see you’re a Steel Beasts fan. Great game. Although I have been unable to get Steel Beasts PRO PE to play on my super-uber gaming computer I just had built. Something to do with Vista as well as the dongle. Pretty irritating considering I paid $100 for the game. From what I've read from Nils, it sounds like compatibility with Vista isn't going to happen. So I guess I bought a $100 mini-frisbee + dongel.
-
Are you talking about armor coated in Teflon, or projectiles coated in Teflon – ala Teflon coated bullets and body armor?
As an aside Teflon is employed in multilayer EFP liners. The Teflon portion of the liner enhances secondary, or behind armor effect. The penetrator portion of the liner – be it tantalum or whatever – wraps around the Teflon during projectile formation. That’s right; the Teflon is in the interior of the EFP. Aluminum can also be employed as the “inner” layer in EFP penetrators. But the use of aluminum appears to be for its pyrophoric characteristics. Conversely the Teflon is described only as being an “energetic material” when functioning as a behind armor effects enhancement. I do not know whether this implies a pseudo-PELE behind armor effect; or whether this implies the Teflon spontaneously ignites during very high energy impacts (ala aluminum powder). I’d guess the former.
I also recall reading something on another discussion forum about shaped charge liners that employ Teflon. It was indicated by whoever posted this bit, that Teflon liners provide enhanced penetration capability against ERA. But I have never come across any research papers that disscuss the use of Teflon liners and their efficiency against ERA. Even after passage of the ERA flyers, the Teflon jet would still have to perforate the primary armor shell of a tank. So I guess I’m skeptical – at least until I can find a bit more solid information on Teflon liners and ERA.
Regards
JD
[ February 03, 2008, 07:00 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]
-
Not that it matters to the price of butter in Slovenia, or relative to more interesting things to yakk about regarding the recent patch. But to be clear, there really isn’t much in the way of voodoo at work with armor penetration. It’s just that it is often brought up on forums such as this one. In fact, it has come up a number of times on this forum, to include this thread.
The “cosine rule” – while applicable under certain conditions of plate penetration – is really only valid under limited circumstances.
What’s the cosine rule? In the way it is typically put forth – ala this particular thread – is that plate ballistic resistance to armor piercing projectiles that rely predominately upon their kinetic energy to perforate armor is somehow directly proportional to the line of sight thickness of the armor plate. This isn't really true, at least under most conditions.
What is a plate’s Line Of Sight Thickness (LOSt)? Let’s say a plate has no inclination – it doesn’t slope. It’s actual thickness is the same as its LOSt thickness. If the plate is inclined at say 30-degrees, than it’s line of sight thickness (LOSt) is going to be greater than its actual thickness. The LOSt thickness is equal to the actual plate thickness divided by the cosine of the angle at which the plate is inclined. For example:
If a plates actual thickness is say 77.9mm and it is inclined at 30-degrees, than the LOSt is simply:
LOSt = 77.9mm/COS(30-deg)
Cosine(30-deg) = 0.86604
Therefore LOSt = 77.9 / 0.866 = 90mm
If a plates actual thickness is say 51.6mm and it is inclined at 55-degrees, than the LOSt is simply:
LOSt = 51.6mm/COS(55-deg)
Cosine(55-deg) = 0.57363
Therefore LOSt = 51.6 / 0.57363 = 90mm
IMAGE-1 Actual Plate Thickness vs. LOSt
As I was saying, folks often want to try and explain the superiority of an inclined plates ballistic protection capability by the plates line of sight thickness. The plate is thicker along the diagonal. Therefore it resists more. But there is more to inclined plate ballistic limit than simply the apparent thickness along the diagonal.
Now let’s consider how much umph it takes for a projectile to penetrate a given plate of roll hardened armor. The following example is for circa-WWII, US-Army 90mm M82 Armor Piercing capped projectile. This is a pretty common shell that was employed by the T-26 Pershing Tank and the M-36 Jackson Tank Destroyer.
The following figure is how much impact velocity the projectile requires to completely pass through a armor plate of various thicknesses and at various inclinations.
IMAGE-2: 90mm M82 APC Limit velocity vs. RHA as a function of t/d
How to read the above graph: The X-Axis or horizontal axis is presented in terms of t/d. t/d is simply a common means of presenting penetration data in terms of the projectile diameter or projectile caliber, divided by the thickness of the plate being attacked. For example:
At t/d = 1 the thickness of the plate is simply:
Projectile Diameter, d = 90mm
Plate Thickness, t = 90mm x 1 = 90mm.
The plate thickness at t/d = 1 is therefore 90mm.
At t/d = 1.5 the plate thickness is simply 1.5 x 90mm = 135mm
At t/d = 0.5 the plate thickness is simply 0.5 x 90mm = 45mm
As I am talking about the validity (or lack of validity) of the often quoted cosine-rule, the t/d values for the penetration data represents the line of sight thickness of the plate rather than the actual plate thickness. For example:
For 30-degrees and t/d=1 the LOSt – like that of the plate with zero inclination -- is also 90mm. However the actual plate thickness is only:
90mm x cosine(30) = 77.9mm.
The vertical axis of the graph is the amount of velocity the projectile requires at impact to completely pass through the plate. For example
At t/d = 1 and inclination = 0-degrees, the impact velocity required for the projectile to pass through the plate is about 1900-feet per second.
At t/d = 1 and inclination = 30-degrees, the impact velocity required for the projectile to pass through the plate is also about 1900-feet per second.
At t/d = 1 and inclination = 55-degrees, the impact velocity required for the projectile to pass through the plate is a smidge over 2200-feet per second.
Why the cosine-rule is not always wrong, but why it is not very accurate the vast majority of the time.
The following figure (Image-3) compares the ratios of velocity required for the 90mm M82 APC projectile to perforate a plate inclined at 0-degrees to that of a plate with the same line of sight thickness (LOSt) when the plate is inclined. So LOSt is being held constant between the zero degrees inclined plate and the plate inclined at either 30-degrees or 55-degrees. When this ratio of limit velocities is equal to 1 for a specific t/d value, than it can be said that the cosine rule accurately predicts the level of ballistic protection the plate provides against 90mm M82 APC. When the ratio is less than 1, or more than 1, than it can be said that the cosine rule does not accurately predict the level of protection provided by the plate at the given inclination.
As the figure shows, except for a couple of very discreate points, the cosine rule doesn’t accurately portray the level of ballistic protection provided by an inclined plate in the majority of situations considered. For all the t/d values considered for the plate inclined at 55-degrees, the plate is providing much more resistance than the simple cosine rule would imply. For 55-degrees inclination, you’re always better off with the inclined plate.
For the 30-degree inclination, when the LOSt t/d ratio is near 1, the cosine rule is pretty accurate. But for t/d less than 1, and 30-degrees inclination, you’re better off going with vertical armor. For t/d greater than 1, and 30-degrees inclination, you’re better off going with the inclined plate.
The cosine rule can be used as a sort of ballpark figure for plate inclinations of about 30-degrees or less (depending upon the projectile type). But for greater inclination – such as 55-degrees – it can be said that the plate is providing a much greater level of ballistic protection than the simple cosine rule would predict.
IMAGE-3: Ratio of Limit Velocity Required to Perforate LOSt at Inclination vs. Same Thickness of Plate at Zero Degrees Inclination. 90mm M82 APC vs. RHA.
And finally – just for grins – below is a sequence of images of a projectile perforating an inclined plate. As you can see the projectile does not follow a straight line path through the plate. The projectile is subjected to several direction changes as it passes through the plate. Each direction change is resulting in rather large amount of stress developing within the projectile. But as you can see, the projectile does not follow the straight LOSt path through the plate.
IMAGE-4: Projectile passage through inclined plate.
Best Regards
JD
[ May 28, 2008, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]
-
That's part of it. But you also have to consider the phase of the moon as well as local tidal conditions and the height of the pyramids.Originally posted by ShiftZ:So Basically it all depends on how the gunner is holding his mouth?
-
Ballistic slope effect is different and somewhat more complex than simple line of sight thickness would imply. Line of sight thickness being simply t/cos(theta)-- where(theta) is the compound angle between side angle of the shot and actual slope of the plate.
Slope effect is the actual increase in limit velocity (or apparent thickness if you like) required by a projectile to perforate sloping armor. If one were comparing the limit velocity for a vertical plate with that of the same "line of sight" thickness for an inclined plate, slope effect can result in a much higher limit velocity; or the same; or even a lower limit velocity than what the simple t/cos(theta) relationship will predict.
-
“The Heights of Courage” by Avigdor Kahalani
“Duel for the Golan” by Asher & Hammel
“Arabs at War” by Kenneth Pollack
-
Go into the scenario editor and add a few friendly tanksOriginally posted by Ras:Hi all,
this scenario is driving me insane.
You need to conquer two german villages with 5 units of infantry. The first village has 1 PAK and 2 HMG but with a wide flanking move I was able to take it with only 5 casualties. That's 4 1/2 squads left. Plus you get two additional squads and two paks as reinforcement. I've also captured the one PAK from the first village. The second village has another PAK, FLAK and at least one squad.
If it wasn't for the Tank force that is triggered when you attack the second village it would be easy to take them out. The way it is I'm struggling to get the reinforcements into position quickly enough and to man the guns with at least one Paratrooper with gunnery above 30. The crew that comes with the PAK has no skills. All the while I'm trying to silence the second PAK from the second village.
I've been trying to win this scenario without suffering too many casualties. I did win it several times but only had 1 1/2 sqads left.
Any hints as to how you take out the second village and where you position your forces to repel the tank force would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Ras
That was the only way I could get through the scenario. But even than it was a tough one to win.
-
I was reading something just recently about the use of Copperhead in Iraq. I can’t recall the context aside from it was urban combat going on somewhere. In this instance Copperhead wasn’t being employed against armor – rather it was being used as a precision artillery munition against a series of occupied buildings. Copperhead was mentioned specifically as well as the laser designator.
I was also watching something recently on Discovery about artillery training at Ft. Sill. They were interviewing one of the battery commanders of whatever the latest SP 155mm the US Army is using, and he started talking about the ammunition ready racks and where they typically store four (maybe it was 5) copperhead rounds. It’s a rather long projectile relative to other forms of 155m ammunition, which I think was why he was yakking about it’s ready racks. The program was relatively recent – made in perhaps 2005 or 2006. The comments about the Copperhead got me to wondering if the projectile is still being employed.
-
Great. Thanks Ergon
Yes -- Agreed. This is something that requires a fair bit of preplanning and -- at least in the case of the British, would probably only be useable at the start of a scenario depicting the begining of a rather big push. For example the first few hours of Goodwood the VIII Corps advance was proceeded by a walking barrage.Originally posted by Egon:I think this is more a job for the static regimental artillery (offmap artillery in the game).
A player placed in the role of Company or Platoon commander (ala TOW) would typically have little or no control over preplanned fires such as a walking barrage involving the coordination mutiple batteries or even multiple battalions or regiments of artillery. But of course that is not something most players would want in their game. They require full control over many aspects of a battlefield for which in reality they would exercise absolutely no control.
In terms of game applications of walking barrages, I suspect this wouldn't be much fun for the player on the receiving end. But modeling artillery effects and employment of indirect artillery within tactical wargames always seem to be such a chore for game designers. This is particularly true of material effects\destructive potential against entrenched troops. Operational assessments often point to the morale effects rather than destructive effects of prelim barrages on entrenched troops. The morale effect should be applicable both in terms of bucking-up morale of troops watching the enemy positions getting pounded, as well as acting to lower the morale of the side getting the pounding. Conversely game effects of artillery are most often limited to purely destructive effects; inflicting casualties or destroying equipment.
But this is so far a field from the original topic I suppose it's best to move on, or open a new thread.
[ October 31, 2007, 06:47 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]
-
Thnx Egon. Nothing in the way of walking or creeping barrage? The British seemed pretty fond of this form of support during attacks.
-
Interesting material Ergon. This would be nice to delve into in a bit more detail in perhaps a stand alone thread. What was the original source?Originally posted by Egon:.. did some research, to be more precise on smarter forms of artillery.
As for the German Panzerartillery there seem to be six standard fire missions.
"Feuerüberfall" (later "Kampfsatz")
- strafe, surprise fire
"Störungsfeuer"
- harassing fire
"Blenden"
- laying down smoke screen, dirt screen
"Zerstörungsfeuer"
- destruction fire, fire for effect
"Vernichtungsfeuer"
- annihilating fire
"Sperrfeuer"
- curtain fire, preventive barrage
If some of those could be implemented in later versions of TOW, it would be great. Technically it should not be to difficult (correct me if I am wrong).
-
-
Most sources put min and max along the following lines; The ITOW, TOW A2 and TOW BB missile can destroy targets at a minimum range of 65 meters and a maximum range of 3,750 meters. The TOW 2B missile can destroy targets at a minimum range of ~288 meters when fired from the ground mount and ~200 meters when fired from the HMMWV or BFV. The TOW 2B has a maximum range of 3,750 meters whether ground- or vehicle-mounted. TOW 2B Aero has additional wire and aerodynamic nose that puts standoff capability to about 4.5Km.Originally posted by winkelried:accordingly to FM 17.12.8 the TOW-2 2B has an arming range of 150 to 300m - is this so? the other TOWs have 65m.
There was a TOW 2B wireless under development with an effective range of 4.5Km. But I don't know if this has gone into production, or if the design has been shelved.
The 65m min standoff for ITOW, TOW 2A and TOW BB seems believable. When Saddams sons were cornered there were a number of TOWs fired into the building by launchers mounted on HMMWVs. From the newsreels of this it appears the range couldn't have been much more than 100-meters from the building.
-
Sorry -- I actually do have three on my list. Add CharlieMike24's #3 to my wish. The fighting to the last man thing does need to be addressed. Perhaps Force Morale Levels -- or objective driven constraints -- or even a timer.Originally posted by CharlieMike24:3 ) Victory and defeat dependent upon objectives and minimum remaining forces, rather than the last man standing. Retreat option would be good too.
Thank you for asking
-
How bout' just 2-things
1. Infantry being able to enter buildings. In addition, and sort of along the same lines after building entry, but I think infantry should be deriving more benefit from cover and/or concealment.
2. Ease and stability in multiplayer mode. Perhaps an online game room where folks can drop in and find opponents and play -- ala "gamespy" or whatever.
-
Can you change the subject please - here are only men discussing important issues of their lives.... and you come up with this oneOriginally posted by Reichenberg:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:
...if there is still any need for warm bodies.
Uwe </font>
-
I'd like to help test the multiplayer mode -- that is if there is still any need for warm bodies.
-
Very Nice! Keep up the great work.
-
I still swing by to lurk on the ToW forum. I haven't been playing the game, but look forward to being able to play it multiplayer mode. This could turn into a very popular game with a few fixes -- ease in multiplayer mode -- and infantry being able to enter buildings.
Anyway, keep up the good work Sneaksie, and thanks for keeping us all up to date on the continued work being conducted on ToW.
-
Vdrop for 0.50-caliber M2 AP at standard conditions:
V0 ~2935-fps
V500yards ~2300-fps
Vdrop for M2 AP is about 1200-fps/1000-yards
Course AP will perforate a great deal more of the typical sorts of construction materials being portrayed in the video than common ball ammunition. Having watched the video again, the announcer does not seem to make it particularly clear what types of ammunition were being employed. Sort of a odd piece of information to leave out of the narrative.
-
Nice Video. Thanks for posting the link. I watched it through only once so I may have missed this detail, but were the small arms tests being conducted with ball or AP?Originally posted by Flanker15:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6760530260633420235&q=firearms+training&hl=en
Bam there ya go.
That was the only way I could get through the scenario. But even than it was a tough one to win.
Multiplayer Mode etc.
in Theatre of War 2
Posted
Sorry -- I did a quick search and nothing jumped out immediately. So if you all have answered this already -- sorry for asking...
I used to play TOW-1 and I used to post regularly to the ToW-1 forum -- many many moons ago. As I recall I drifted from the game cause' of the multiplayer issues.
Has the multiplayer stuff been resolved in ToW-2?
Are there dedicated servers where ToW-2 players gather to blow each other up?
I always thought ToW-1 had such amazing potential. Like Atomics old Close COmbat on steroids. But the problems with multiplayer mode and the lack of any dedicated servers made me drift onto other things. I lost interest in blowing up and being blown up by the AI. Duking it out with Human controled opposition is I think the key to these sorts of games.