Vanir Ausf B

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! 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.

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.

The net result would be that most players would just stop doing buddy aid. It's not beneficial enough to justify that level of micromanagement.

If this is your primary concern then I have some good news: You're wrong! Shatter gap is barely even in the game from what I can tell. M4A3 Sherman 76 vs Tiger I late @ 500m (sample size 325) Full penetration: 11% Partial Penetrations: 63% Spalling: 22% No Effect: 4% Pz IV ausf H vs Tiger I late @ 750m (sample size 328) Full penetration: 16% Partial penetration: 57% Spalling: 23% No effect: 3% Only hits on the driver plate were counted (the "Superstructure Front Hull" in-game). The Tigers were angled about 10° away from the shooters in order to match Rexfords shatter gap criteria. This is a very good apples to apples comparison. The Sherman's penetration at 500 meters is identical to the Pz IV's penetration at 750 meters (116mm). They also use the same shell type (APCBC with HE burster) and have virtually the same diameter. If you look at the percentage of hits that were penetrations of some type between the two guns they are identical (73.5% and 73.8%). Spalling and no effect ratios are also identical. The only significant difference is that a larger percentage of Pz IV penetrations are full rather than partial, but the difference is small, 5% of total hits. So contrary to claims that shatter gap modeling in the game is "severe" or "extreme" it appears to be very subdued, to the point of near-irrelevance unless there are other conditions under which it is more pronounced. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0k16bdi28leb03k/Pz%20IV%20750m%20shatter%20001.bts?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjndw7soxkdzd6f/Sherman76%20500m%20shatter.bts?dl=0

Shatter gap is a thing. Rexford did not invent it out of thin air on a sleepless night. I don't have this book (it costs over 100 dollars) but the guy who wrote it is a bonafide expert in the field. Armour: Materials, Theory, and Design Rexford also references an article in the Journal of Impact Engineering, although the photocopy of the table from it in his book is poor quality and only partially legible. How this applies to US 76mm does involve some extrapolation and educated guesswork, but I have read comments regarding Rexford's shatter gap work by people who know their stuff (Paul Lakowski, John D. Salt, "Mobius") and none of them have raised objection to his methodology or conclusions that I am aware of.

Also a quick note on the Shoeburyness test. As I recall, the 100mm test plate was 210-220 BHN compared to 300-340 BHN Tiger RHA. With good quality ammo that would not make much of a difference but if the ammo was low hardness it might. Besides that possible issue is Rexford's note that the low quality ammo was sourced from one of three manufactures, so it's entirely possible the Shoeburyness tests used good ammo but actual rounds in the field were of uneven quality (Combat Mission's ballistic modeling appears to operate under this assumption).

I have not read Faint Praise so I don't know exactly what events Rexford is referring to. However, when mentioning Faint Praise in his book he wrote "Allied" experience in Normandy, not US. I seem to recall that the British had M10 tank destroyers. Alternative theories are always welcome I don't see where you are getting this. If you mean the U.S. Navy test on pg 31 there is a penetration at 2065 fps. That is true. There is an assumption that the testers knew what they were doing and would not have made those conclusions without observing fair hits.

It would be, had I actually done that. It seems a little disingenuous to insinuate that I did Apparently we have different views on the meaning of the word "basis". I think the word you may be looking for is inspiration. Semantics. As for the Panther mantlet, Jentz lists 100mm as the mantlet thickness for all Panther models (Panther Tank, pgs 51, 57 and 86). If you find anything solid to suggest otherwise I will shoot it up to BFC.

I do. Not a typo. Mantlet is 100mm. Front turret is 100mm on ausf D, 110mm on ausf A and G. I don't care to get into a debate on shatter gap but to claim that Bird and Livingston used Faint Praise as the basis for their shatter gap theory is highly disingenuous. Baily's book is mentioned in passing in a single sentence out of 4 pages of analysis.

While the Panther mantlet does benefit from curvature, the apex where it is vulnerable has almost nothing behind it. Most of the Tiger mantlet area is backed by the 102mm-think front turret armor.

Also keep in mind that shatter gap modeling in CM is understated compared to Rexford's numbers as evidenced by the 50% penetration vs. Tiger driver plate at 500 meters.

Good luck. The guy who does BFCs ballistics modeling never reads this forum The Panther mantlet is actually 100mm thick* and is cast armor so has slightly lower resistance compared to RHA of equal thickness. *At the apex. It thins out near the upper and lower edges.

At 500 meters and 10° obliquity US 76mm M62A1 penetrates the Tiger I driver plate (102mm @ 10° from vertical) about half the time in CMBN and on around 20-25% of hits at 800 meters at the same angle. The turret is an entirely different beast because of the mantlet. Soviet 85L52 has slightly higher penetration than US 76mm at 500 meters and AFAIK does not suffer from shatter gap in Red Thunder. My guess is that the odds of getting shatter gap removed from the game are essentially zero.

I am quite certain there are no machine guns in the game that cannot deploy in a building and fire out of it. They do have much longer deploy times within buildings, often several minutes. The deploy time listed in the UI will change when they enter a building. If you see a unit take much longer than the listed deploy time it could be a bug but that is a different issue than what the OP is reporting.

Can't reproduce this please post a save game file. Contrary to some other people's experience I have no trouble getting prone infantry to see out of buildings.

There is also FHA (face hardened armor) and cast armor.

That's what sheeee... ah never mind.

I haven't tested. They probably spot the same. Hiding infantry only spot worse because their faces are in the dirt part of the time. Not a problem with vehicles. I expect they will be reluctant to open fire, similar to how infantry on Hide are. I only hide vehicles that are in close terrain and have very limited LOS. The difference in sound contact range is not huge. IIRC it drops from 140 meters to about 70m.

I don't know, but some possibilities: "The British systematically failed to coordinate movement and suppressive fires after about mid-morning of the opening day. ... The attack had by then moved beyond the reach of the British batteries on the northern side of the Orne River, and the congestion in the march columns had kept the artillery from moving forward into supporting range. ... The net result was thus an exposed, massed, nearly pure-tank assault pressing forward rapidly without supporting infantry or supporting suppressive fires." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Goodwood#Analysis

Oops. Let me rephrase that last statement. It has no effect on vehicles in games other than Black Sea. In Black Sea it does decrease the distance at which a stationary vehicle can be detected via sound contact. I forgot that Charles changed that. Which is embarrassing since it was my own bug report that got it changed, LOL. I assume it will also be changed in the other games eventually.

There is no difference in effects between dry ground and mud, but I don't think marsh or water tiles have been tested.

In Black Sea the Hide command is the only way to prevent anti-aircraft units from firing on aircraft (they ignore covered arcs when targeting aircraft). I assume this function will be back-ported to the other games in the next batch of patches. Outside of that it has no effect on vehicles.

3BM60 Svinets-2

The is a popular tracer mod (IIRC made by Vein) that has alternate lengths and colors.

Do you actually play the game?