Vanir Ausf B

I do have proof.
 
PTP = Projectile passes through plate.
CP = Complete Penetration
 
CM doesn't use these terms at all, and "spalling" isn't a category of hit in the 1944 report. "Partial penetration" is the only linguistic overlap between the two. It is obvious that BFC did not use the 1944 US Army classification as a template for CM, therefore your belief that what the game defines as a PP must be the same as what the 1944 report defines is just bizarre.
 
 
I have not given a definition of tactically acceptable. I haven't even used that term. If you mean my belief that there is nothing major wrong with the ballistics then the fact that you don't care what I think confirms my suspicion that I am wasting my time here.
 
.
And if the tank explodes does that mean the gun is ineffective? LOL  
 
I am done with you.
 
 
 
 
 

 

I do have proof.
 
PTP = Projectile passes through plate.
CP = Complete Penetration
 
CM doesn't use these terms at all, and "spalling" isn't a category of hit in the 1944 report. "Partial penetration" is the only linguistic overlap between the two. It is obvious that BFC did not use the 1944 US Army classification as a template for CM, therefore your belief that what the game defines as a PP must be the same as what the 1944 report defines is just bizarre.
 
 
I have not given a definition of tactically acceptable. I haven't even used that term. If you mean my belief that there is nothing major wrong with the ballistics then the fact that you don't care what I think confirms my suspicion that I am wasting my time here.
 
.
And if the tank explodes does that mean the gun is ineffective? LOL  
 
I am done with you.
 
 
 
 
 

 

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.
 

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.
 

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.

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.

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

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

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

I have to disagree that this is outside of the scope of a regular CM battle.  In real life, on the farm, in my fields, I can go from working ground at 0900 to being parked in the yard by 1100. Is a two hour battle really outside the timelines of CM?
 
A real life example: 
 
This fall we had a significant amount of rain and I was unable to work ground at my parents farm.  We waited until late November when we finally had an evening with temperatures dropping to -6C overnight.  In the morning I was able to start chisel ploughing at 0700 as the sun was coming up.  By 0900 the temperature had risen to +2C and the sun was shining brightly.  The top of the ground was starting to get slick but still held the tractor up without issue.  By 0930 the tractor was beginning to leave a small track and the wheels were wet. By 1000, mud was starting to stick to the tires but the tractor was still able to drive without leaving too big of ruts. By 1030, the back window was covered in mud, the tractor was struggling to pull the chisel plow and at times I had to lift it completely out of the ground to keep moving. After the third time of lifting the plough out of the ground to be able to keep driving, I called it quits for the day.
 
So even if we take the entire timeline into account, it is 4 hours or the maximum amount of time available for a CM battle. At the start of the battle the risk of bogging would be quite low but as the battle rages on the risk would rise rather rapidly. Now I know there are not many 4 hour battles but a battle fought anywhere in this timeframe will see the ground conditions changing and there will be an impact on how vehicles are able to travel.

You don't help yourself by making absurd claims such as this.

Do you actually play the game?

c3k would've been a great commander...in WWI.
 
 
Mord.

Martyrs...in the old days you burned them and that was that....in the age of the internet the victim-hood is eternal.
 
 
 
Mord.

I finally got around to this.
 
At 450 meters:
 
1) Target enemy unit: mortar used
2) Target area fire: mortar used
3) Target Light enemy unit: mortar used
4) Target Light area fire: small arms used
 
#4 may be a bug and has been reported.

You don't help yourself by making absurd claims such as this.

I finally got around to this.
 
At 450 meters:
 
1) Target enemy unit: mortar used
2) Target area fire: mortar used
3) Target Light enemy unit: mortar used
4) Target Light area fire: small arms used
 
#4 may be a bug and has been reported.

So I've got the master maps for:
 
Radzymin 1,2,3
 
and
 
Orsha 3,4,5
 
Working in CM:BS.
 
The repository is weird and I don't want to deal with it so I haven't uploaded them there so here is a link to a zip file with them in it
 
-> https://app.box.com/s/tx5wsizqe6lbe0pent88verom7grtg0h

So, seems that 120mm mortars are coded so that they simply can't penetrate the top armor of a Bradley. Being this correct or not I don't know.
 
Anyway, here are some screenshots of tests:
 



 
 
The tests tend to go this way Always. Tracks being destroyed (probably by the nearby explosions) are a sure thing, then, sub system damage of various kind happens. Never scored a penetration.

122mm howitzer precision strikes.
The effect seems similar, no penetrations scored ever, although it's possible that the collateral damage to subsystems is a bit heavier.


 
 
Now, a screenshot that might have something more to tell: weakpoints.
As you can see there are 4 hit marks.
 

 
-number 1 = this one caused massive sub system damage, especially to the tows/targeting/ir optics/lsr warn and it appears to be very consistent, the hit is right there, the damage caused massive, although not capable of destroying the vehicle, and rightly so, because the damage was somehow absorbed by the large outside element which is the tow launcher.
 
-number 2 = right on top of driver's hatch. Now, I am not an expert and I don't know how much armor is there, but from an ignorant point of view maybe that should be some sort of a weakspot, or maybe not.
 
-number 3 = this shot resulted in a "hit weapon Mount". Ok, although it didn't destroy the main gun. Granted it's on the mantlet, but I wonder if such a shot might cause a serious trouble with the gun elevation system if not the gun itself. Another case where I would say: that should cause a destroyed gun.
 
-number 4 = like number 2. I don't know if the vehicle engine was destroyed by this shot, the Bradley was immobilized already by other nearby explosions (tracks hit), anyway, this is another example of potential entry point for a HE explosion that might (Always from an ignorant point of view) have some other effects on the inside of the vehicle (killing people).

I am gonna break your phone into a thousand pieces, Sublime.
 
 
Mord.

I wouldn't call it tiny, but it will tend to be less impressive than with a round that massively overpenetrates, and you are more likely to see partial penetrations than full penetrations. However, the M61 (US version, not the UK one) is APHE so it is not entirely reliant on kinetic energy for its after-armor effects.

M72
@ 100 meters, 0°
RHA: 109mm
FHA:  91mm
 
@ 1000 meters, 0°
RHA: 76mm
FHA: 58mm
 
M61A1
@ 100 meters, 0°
RHA: 88mm
FHA: 102mm
 
@ 1000 meters, 0°
RHA: 73mm
FHA: 86mm
 
Source: WWII Ballistics - Armor and Gunnery
 

 
From what I have read it was only used as a training round by '44 but there were probably exceptions.
 

M72
@ 100 meters, 0°
RHA: 109mm
FHA:  91mm
 
@ 1000 meters, 0°
RHA: 76mm
FHA: 58mm
 
M61A1
@ 100 meters, 0°
RHA: 88mm
FHA: 102mm
 
@ 1000 meters, 0°
RHA: 73mm
FHA: 86mm
 
Source: WWII Ballistics - Armor and Gunnery
 

 
From what I have read it was only used as a training round by '44 but there were probably exceptions.