Amizaur

OK, thanks . I got used to the old theme colours as "Battlefront forums" colours .

Is it possible to get an "old look" of the forum ? Some profile settings ?

"If it's moving perpendicular to you, then it's alot harder to hit. But even then it's only a matter of ranging the shot and timing it to get a decent hit." And tis ranging and timing is not easy! Only best gunners had some exeptional "feel" for estimating the correct lead to reliably hit moving (crossing) targets at longer ranges. For most gunners firing at distant, crossing targets would heavily affect their accuracy, even using high velocity gun. I feel that in CMx2 gunners are "too good" when firing at moving targets, especially moving with lateral motion. Moving target, even one moving towards the gun, puts more stress on the gunner, especially not experienced one. Moving laterally puts even more stress causing the gunner to estimate both ther range and the lead. Each missed shot increases the stress and frustration, further decreasing the chances for next hit. It's a known phenomena, allowing fast running T-34 to survive charging at German AT guns - gunners seeing multiple and quickly closing T-34 tanks got nervous and missed a lot, which made them even more nervous, in the end they often abandoned their guns and run away before T-34 got really close. They felt defenceless. I think that at range of 1800m estimating correctly and simultaneously both range and lead is very difficult task for an average gunner and I would not expect an average gunner to achieve a hit before 4th or 6th shot - and that would be considered an achievment! We know that when firing at distant targets the CMx2 engine simulates the "ranging error" of the gunner, making the shot too short or too long by some calculated random amount. I hope that it works the same for simulating the error in "lead" needed to hit moving target. If so, maybe the simulated "lead error" is a bit too small if tanks have no problems hitting fast moving targets at 1800m with 2nd or 3rd shot ?

Has anyone tested if moving tanks have any disadvantage in spotting against stationary tanks ? Fast moving tanks IMO should have penalty for spotting at close-medium range (100-500m) and have BIG penalty for spotting at medium-long range (>500m). At long range (>1000-1500m) they really shouln't spot anything short of a Mouse, while riding fast. IT's nearly impossible to use binoculars while riding on fast moving tank (difficult even on slow moving one). Looking trough gunner's sight is not better (some mix of ground and blue sky to see). What is left for spotting is naked eye, and on fast moving tank is also not as good as in stationary one. Any binoculars or optics advantage should be reduced at least by half if the tank is moving slow and disabled completly if the tank is moving fast (only naked eye spotting). Spotting range and probability of spotting anything should be severly reduced while moving fast. In reality tanks moved fast from one covered position to another, they could hardly spot while moving (only accidentally - some easily visible targets, not small, distant or camuflaged ones). I wonder if this is the case in the game. Anyone knows ?

I looked at cross-sections of 75mm and 88mm HE shells - the nose fuses are buried quite deep into the shel's nose, the walls of the shell case are quite thick... So after thinking again, maybe the fuse with delay setting could still work (even struck and deformed) after succesfull penetration if only the shell retains it's structural integrity and the fuse is still in contact with the HE charge. But for the shell to maitain structural integrity and shape, the penetrated armor can't be too thick and defeated by overmatching & plugging. So armor should be markedly thinner than shell's diameter. I don't believe in 88mm HE penetrating 78mm of armor. Maybe a 1000m/s one . The photos of 88L56 against T-34/76 glacis test with results can be found in a book "Tigers on Eastern front" by Frontline illustration.

Regarding the CMBx1 HE penetration table: 88mm HE and 152mm HE shells penetrating more armor, than huge 152mm HE ? Well... Typical tank HE shell would only be equipped with a nose fuse. If set to superquick action, it would detonate the shell on contact with armor so the penetrating effect is mainly from HE explosion against the steel plate. Heavier the shell, more HE, greater the penetration (or rather break trough) potential If the nose fuse was set to delayed action, I think fuse would be destroyed during the process of penetrating the armored plate (succesfull or not) and not detonate the shell later. It's post-penetration effectiveness would be like of an inert shell (no explosion). Only if the armor was thin (10-20mm) the nose fuse could survive (and shell integrity be preserved) for detonation. It's hard to imagine for me a nose fuse (and the whole 85mm or 88mm shell) surviving penetration of something like 78mm thick armored plate. Maybe it would work with 20mm plate. Anyway, IMO: IF those penetration table is for penetration by High-explosive effect - the larger and heavier 122mm and 152mm shells should have much greater penetration than 85mm and 88mm HE shells. IF the table is for ballistic penetration by (inert) HE shells, then again - 152mm HE shell has so much mass, momentum and plate-overmatching effect that it would penetrate more armor than much lighter and smaller 88mm or 85mm shell. P.S. By the way, Russians tested 88L56 gun against slightly angled T-34 tank from 1500m. APCBC penetrated and partially penetrated the glacis plate (depending on the place of hit). 88mm HE shell _deformed_ the whole 45mm glacis plate (it bent inwards a bit) and broke off the driver's hatch which flew away. A mission kill, yes. But the shell did not penetrate, wasn't even close to this. Russians tested also 122mm and 152mm HE shells against Tiger tanks - including 80mm side armor plates. With good effect - armor cracking and even breaking - but the effects varied, some hits did damage, some not. Second or third hit was much more likely to crack the armor than first one. Many of those hits were mission kills, but certainly not penetrations against 80mm armor. They didn't bother to test 85mm HE against Tiger side armor, as it was not very effective. 122mm and 152mm HE shells were penetrating (or rather destroying) side armor plates of PzIV tanks, and very effective against side armor of Panther tanks (40-50mm) (large scale cracking and even breaking of armored plates). I don't think 85mm HE shell would be reliably destrying Panther side armor by HE action (not talking about multiple repeated hits). So I guess 85mm HE penetration potential would be in order or 20-30mm rather than almost 80mm. Same for 88mm HE. I have no idea, how much armor an inert 85mm/88mm HE shell could penetrate. But I think a 15cm 43kg shell going 650m/s would penetrate even thicker plate than 8.5cm 9.5kg 790m/s one.

In my tests T-34/85s started to use HE when they had spent about 1/2 to 2/3 of their initial AP amount. IIRC...

In your test (where penetration chance was 1%) did T-34/85 commanders use both APBC and HE shells, or did they use only APBC and only after there were no APBC left, they started using HE ? In my tests at 1000m range T-34/85 used both APBC and HE shells (they used HE sometimes while still having APBC available) so I assume some internal game calculations "suggested" them that both shells have similar chance for penetration (?). It was against Panther A early. Anyway, maybe simply penetration potential of 85mm HE is little to high ? Reducing it a bit then would fix the problem of T-34/85 being capable of one-hit destroying a Panther at 2000m with HE. I have absolutely no problem believing that 122mm HE could mission-kill a Panther cracking it's frontal plate, even causing crew casualites (so basically in game terms, penetrating) but I can HARDLY believe a SINGLE 85mm HE (being really a FRAG shell with only 0.7kg of high explosive) could do it ! (122mm HE contained 3,6kg of HE and lots of momentum).

I wonder if the bug about T-34/85 HE shells penetrating Panther front armor was corrected in the patch ? It worked somewhat like HEAT round, so T-34/85 crews tended to use it against Panthers at long ranges.

Just checked - now after patch a "weapon" hit means guaranteed (or almost guaranteed) gun damage, a "weapon mount" penetration means a high chance for gun damage. I'm afraid we'll see even more gun damages now, than before. BTW things like front turret penetration destroying the tracks, or lower hull partial penetration damaging the optics makes me still amused... I know damage is random, but some combinations of "hit place/damaged system" should really be excluded...

IIRC (Don't have time right now to check it) previously the gun could only be destroyed by "Weapon" hits. It NEVER happened from "weapon mount" (so, basically, a mantlet) hits. This change could mean MORE gun damage happening. I hope that chances for damage during hit were lowered, to not increase overall gun damage chances (which were rather high IMO). P.S. On the other hand, gun damage chance from mantlet hits is absolutely realistic thing. This way a tank can get it's gun damaged from an angled shot, and not only from directly frontal shots, as it was.

BF, could you please shed some light on the "Improved damage modeling for external systems on tanks" part ? What is this about ? Thx

I miss it too... WEGO TCP/IP multiplayer - with replay watching and without need of loading savegame files like in PBEM. In fact miss it so desperatly that I could even pay for it, too

I know what could happen. The bullet could hit some electrical equipment and make a short that disabled the Stug's electrical systems, stopping the engine ect. A dead tank. But anyway the crew should not bail-out because of that... I have read in some tanker's memoirs about similar strange and rare occurence - mg bullet or a bullet caused an electrical short that disabled whole tank. And it was an was external hit IIRC and it had something to do with an radio antenna. Crew had to wait untill they can get out safely to fix the short and make electric system functioning again. Unfortunately, I can't remember what tank, at what front, in whose momoirs was that...

"One more shortcoming of the Sherman was the construction of the driver's hatch. The hatch on the first shipment of Shermans was located in the roof of the hull and simply opened upward. Frequently the driver-mechanic opened it and raised his head in order to see better. There were several occasions when during the rotation of the turret the main gun struck this hatch and knocked it into the driver's head. We had this happen once or twice in my own unit. Later the Americans corrected this deficiency. Now the hatch rose up and simply moved to the side, like on modern tanks." There is not a single word here suggesting that opening the driver's hatch was allowed DURING THE BATTLE. It could be opened by drivers during road marches, maneuvering and other non-combat activities that sometimes also require rotation of the turret. AFAIK it was forbidden to leave open hatch during the battle - most Russian tankers say in their memoirs it was forbidden and they would not allow that, as it was dangerous. But but some T-34 drivers/crews kept them _slightly_ ajar anyway, in fear they would burn alive if the hatch is blocked by a hit. On the other hand, it could be that some drivers opened Sherman driver's hatch in a battle, in places when they were safe from small arms fire. Forbidden things were still done, sometimes...

I'm not sure if the buttoning of Russian tanks reduced their spotting capabilities in regard of range. I mean - using their optics (periscopes, PT-4, gunners periscopic sights) they definitely COULD spot a tank at 1000m or more. What was really restricted was their all-around vision and situational awarness. Russian tank would spot quite well - not much worse than German tank (using dusty 1x optics - especially on the move - may be at times not as good as that using naturally stabilized and cleaned naked eye) - but it would spot only in direction the commander periscope and/or gunner's sight was turned at the moment. It was blind in other directions, so it could often seem to be "just blind". Tunnel vision. And it's a very bad thing for tanks. Unbuttoned status restricted for Russian HQ tanks - interesting idea, I would love to see that as an option for increased realism. It would help balancing scenarions with historical tank rations (Russian having 5x to 10x advantage in tanks during Bagration)

I found yest another very insteresting quote: "I've never once seen a Russian commander open his hatch to look out in battle. This was fortunate for us and unfortunate for our enemy."

You can find on the web cross-sections of Tiger mantlet casting and see that the thickness is highly variable, but in most areas that actually protects the crew it's thicker than 100mm.

I said that the TURRET armor seems to be designed with 100-120mm protection level in mind (so definitely NOT 160mm). It's hard for me to guess if they wanted 100 or 120mm but the front turret/mantlet armor is about that thick in near-vertical areas. Max 120mm (mantlet in vertical part), min 100mm (front turret and slighly-sloped parts of mantlet). I'm not discussing hull armor here. I don't trust written sources if they contradict each other. I take a ruler and go to measure myself, if I can. I did and I'm sure there is no 160mm parts of mantlet armor other than sum of mantlet + front turret in places where they overlapp. The physical thickness may reach 160mm in some places. If those sources say simply than "the front turret thickness is 160mm" then it's a poor source, whatever the author is. If they say "up to 160mm" then it could be true. The idea of 160mm max thickness could also come from some cross-section that can be found at IS-1 manual (and possibly IS-2 manual). The solid area around the barrel opening is drawn in a way that it can be interpreted as if the mantlet was so thick, but it's just reinforced part that the cross-section was cut trough... The most vunerable parts of front turret would be front turret armor on the left and right of the narrow mantl, or right of the wide one - vertical parts of 90-100mm thickness. And of course any hit on sight/MG opening or hit at the gap between mantlet and turret armor. The mantlet/turret armor castings seem to be very crude and hard. It's probably not very resistant if overmatched, so 70mm + 80mm of this armor would not resist well (the overlaping part). One more thing - the casting is SO crude, that I absolutely believe in +/- few centimeters difference in armor thickness between two turrets, and the armor quality just can't be good looking at it's surface. Link to more pictures full resolution (RAR archive, about 120MB): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72669076/IS-2%20photos%20by%20Amizaur.rar

Yes you're right, I had a moving target in mind, sorry I didn't mention that.

The problem there (WT) is not that T-34/85 can kill a Tiger from more than 100m , but that almost ANY penetration of Tiger armor by T-34 shell ends with Tiger ammo exploding, when T-34/85 is able to withstand several penetrations by Tiger shells and still return fire . I would be satisfied if this was equal, for example 50% hits end with vehicle knock-out for both tanks. Data for Su-100 gun with 900m/s muzzle velocity (it's a bit lower than Panther shell, but on the other hand the shell is much heavier and should not slow down as quick as 75mm shell): Muzzle velocity: 895m/s, velocity at 1800m: 627m/s, time of flight: 2,4s, trajectory height: 7,2m (at half distance). Panther gun - muzzle velocity 925-935m/s, velocity at 1800m: 675m/s, time of flight (estimated) ~ 2,2s. Seems that 75mm APBC shell has ballistic coefficient bit better than 100mm Russian AP (it retains speed better). The trajectory height would be a little lower for Panther shell than for Su-100 shell - not 7m but around 6m. Still more than tank height. The range for 2,5m max trajectory height would be about 1200-1300m for Panther gun and 1150m for Su-100 gun.

JasonC - I can agree that the difference in optics quality could be in glass quality. Russian sights had to be mass-produced so quality had to be sacrificed, especially in 1942-1943 period. Nevertheless in good light conditions the difference should not be that high - those optics were an adequate tool for the task. German were better, sure, but Russian optics quality can't justify that Russian tanks have problems with spotting German tanks at all at ranges below 1000m. First, it's not THAT bad, second - spotting was done mainly by naked eye and binoculars, and no one should have problem spotting a tank in open field below 1000m without any optics. You wrote about IS-2 turret and mantlet armor, about 160mm max thickness and "75mm mantlet armor over the base turret armor". Can I ask, where that info comes from ? I was personally interested in that subject to the point, that - being not satisfied with armor descriptions cited in various sources, suspecting that the sources cite one another and there could be an error in initial measurements - I made a trips to two of preserved IS-2 examples in Poland to personally measure the armor as well as I can. I could not measure the thickness of some parts, but I could see the armor layout of the turret and mantlet (external and internal) and measure some parts. It seems for me that the cited 160mm is possible only at small area around the gun. It seems that the turret was designed with total armor thickness 100-120mm in mind. Single piece armor is 100-120mm thick, and in areas where thinner mantlet armor covers thinner turret armor, the sum of thickness is around 160mm (probably to ensure level of protection similar to single 120mm armor). The left mantlet area (around the gunsight port) is about 75mm thick but it's not over a "base mantlet armor", below that area is about 80mm of front turret armor. The left mantlet between the gunsight port and the gun (covering the opening in front turret armor) is about 120mm thickness maximum. The right mantlet area (around MG port) is up to 100-120mm thick and is not backed up by any front turret armor at all (covering an opening in turret armor). It's easy to make an error trying to measure trough a MG port hole - there is a steel pipe welded inside MG port that is extending good 60mm inside the turret, so getting 180mm reading trough the hole doesn't mean the armor is so thick. It's about 100-120mm (the thickness differs and reaches max of 120mm only in small area where mantlet surface is vertical). I can't see where the mythical 160mm could be, maybe in reinforced area very close to the gun tube, but that's a small percent of whole mantlet. Also sum of the mantlet and turret armor near the gunsight port (75-80mm + 80mm) gives roughly 160mm, but those two cast 80mm plates would not resist as solid 160mm armor. I'll try to find notes and schemes I made, because what I wrote is only what I remember and what can be seen measured on the photos. I made a lot more measurements but have to find them.

As someone said, the advantage of German optics over Rusian optics would show only at the "outer performance edges - low light levels and extended ranges". They were not bad at all. Possibly better than American ones. And someone mentioned the "magic trangles" in German sights - as a big advantage. The truth is that only very early T-34/85 and IS-2 had old telescopic sights with a simple cross. All later IS-2 and T-34/85 gunsights (TSh-15, Tsh-16 and TSh-17) had x4 magnification, good FOV and reticule with horizontal mil scale used for leading angle and range estimation, just like in German sights. So really there were no big advantage for German sight users. The real difference was, that when a German gunner - after carefully estimating the range - missed the first shot (and most of first-shots were missed at ranges over 1000m) - he could follow in 5s with next, corrected shot that was much more likely to hit, and then in next 5s with a third corrected shot - almost guaranteed hit. Russian gunner in IS-2 after firing first shot had to wait AT LEAST 20s (more likelyy 30s) before he could fire again, a time enough for a German tank to return fire 3 or 4 times. That's why the most common tactic for IS-2 was to fire a single, well aimed shot, and if missed - reverse into cover and go to another firing position. As first-shot accuracy was not great, the efficiency of that method was not high. But if the shell hit sometimes, the results were catastrophic (full crew loses often). The Russian crews fighting on IS-2 tanks were maybe not so well trained (especially gunners) like German ones, but they were much higher quality than ordinary T-34 crews. There were two officers in the crew (the commander and driver). IS-2 were considered as highly valuable assets (not as expendable as T-34) and got best crews with better training, also used better and more carefull tactics. An IS-2 in an ambush could be deadly. At less than 1000m the first well aimed shot is likely to hit and destroy German tank in one shot, then the IS should reverse for reloading, then find another covered position and take another well-aimed shot. Sadly, it's hard to act this way in CMx2 in WEGO mode. If we could get a special order for slow-reloading tanks or tanks fighting against overwhelming enemy - you would select two points (like in old "shoot & scoot order_ and the tank would then wait in ambush untill it finds a target and shots, and then reverse to the second selected point.

I second that. I would sometimes prefer to set shorter turns, like 30s, too.

Probably the best answer is - it depends.