Amizaur

I played a bit with test range, using Panther A as targets. I checked spread pattern of a Tiger E from 1000m. When it started to shoot HE at the Panther, it turned out that 8,8cm HE is able to: sometimes (rarely) penetrate front upper hull of Panther A mid (I got penetrations at the MG ball and at driver visor) - sometimes (two penetrations out of several hits) it penetrates penetrate 100mm front turret armor of Panther A mid (one partial penetration and one full penetration that killed the Panther). So the bug (?) with strange HE penetrations is not limited to 85mm HE, same is with 8,8cm HE. I'd like to remind that 85mm HE was able to accidentally penetrate Panther A mid front upper plate hitting it's center - and not only possibly weaker areas like machinegun mount or driver's visor. There is definitely some problem with HE penetrations. I didn't notice any penetrations of Panther front hull (any plate) by Panter's 7,5cm HE shells. Maybe it's not bugged or maybe calibre is too small so penetration not enough. ***

OK, so I understand that hits on front turret have some chance damaging coaxial MG, hits on upper hull have some chance damaging bow MG, ad this is not conneted with the precise hit location showed by hit decal. But I would prefer that upper hull hit that damages "drive train" be rather called "engine damage" than "track damage" - easier to imagine the shock caused by the hit damaging the engine, that anything (shrapnel, shock) damaging the track which is in another place and not exposed to this explosion . P.S. HE shells in CMRT 1.0 leave same decal type as AP shells. A shiny one for ricochet . I would suggest changing it to HEAT_ricochet decal type. And make a new decal - a big irregularr hole - for HE penetratons. The decals have to be in the same place every time. Imagine a curved, rounded surface where a shell hit. The effect - penetration or ricochet - would strongly depend on where exactly it hit. If it hit in different place in a replay, there would have to be a different hit effect - ricochet instead of penetration or vice versa.

Would be much easier if we could set in the editor precise amounts of AP / HE shells for a tank, not only reduce the ammo as a whole... Tracks being damaged after a hit on the upper hull would suggest that tank damage in CMx2 is somewhat "random" and not depending on which part of the tank was hit. I do not want to believe that. But in my recent tests I had some Panters A which had 3-5 hits directly at the bow machinegun mount and this MG was still undamaged... I had a Panther where 85mm shell hit directly at the coaxial machinegun port, and the MG was undamaged. How the damage system works ? Is it based on where a shell hit ? Are there any "hitboxes" for vunerable components, or is there only some random chance for damage of bow MG if a shell hit front upper hull ? Or maybe every shell can damage anything, and it doesn't matter it hits ? It may have changed. During testing I reloaded the same saved game few times, and the shell hit decals were exactly in the same places ever time. I hav screenshots of the decals done with various decal textures and hits are in the same place. edit:

T-34/85 are not exactly match for Tiers, but are enough for good player to kill the Tigers - especially against an AI. I personlly killed two AI Tigers i scenario where I had only one T34/85 left - one was killed by AT gun, the second was immobilised and klled b Tiges when they arrived. Oe Tiger was killed easily from the flank, second one - I maneuvered from behind a cover at high speed to very close range, and it took a bit of luck to be successfull. Use numerical advantage. Use advantageous positioning. Maneuver to the side, maneuver from both sides, maneuver to fight from close. It's a bit challenging - but it's good thing. Who would like it to be too easy ? And after all, you have chosen to play the soviet side, and you ave the very same problem the soviets had. Solve it.

I also noticed that AA weapons like small flaks have very small spread when firing against ground targets. Maybe too small, even technically, with the aimpoint too stable. The shell hitting pattern is too small to be really effective. It would be good if small modification was made, to either increase it's spread pattern, or make the gun to slightly shift the aimpoint a bit in random direction several times per second. This way more of the tank surface would be hit and this would increase the chance for damage. This would also increase it's effectiveness against infantry, spreading shells over somewhat larger area. Similar mechanizm already is used in game - when tank is shooting at another tank from close range, it doesn't aim directly at it's center of mass - because from 100m all shells would hit almost the same spot, same armored plate. Instead of that, some extra random shift to the aimpoint is added before every shot, so every shot lands in another place - hits against lower armor or against the turret armor are at all possible from close range. The amount of the "aimpoint shift" for each shot probably depends on range and target size and is calculated in a way that the "overall spread pattern" is about the size of the target. Similar thing is needed for AA guns, but changing the aimpoint bfore EVERY shot would be both unrealistic and cpu consuming, it would be enough if the aimpoint was changed two or three times a second, best would be if the aimpoint was continously shifted in some zig-zags through target. Most simple solution - increase the "technical" gun spread radius, or make it depending on target type and range to target.

All above pictures - results of T-34/85 M1943 firing against Panthers A mid from 1000m. The pattern is true for sustained shooting, not for "first shot" accuracy which is much worse, so really any part of enemy tank can be hit with first shot (if it hits at all). Intersting thing is, from 100m the spread pattern is even wider (no pictures unfortunately) so the game adds some additional spread to the aimpoint at close ranges, to avoid hitting always the same spot. This way, hits like lower hull from 100m are possible.

The hit on lower edge of the mantlet, ricocheting into the top hull - note, that the ricochet was going to the left side, not in the line with the original projectile path. So there is some random vector of momentum added to ricochets, which happens to be lateral. And this is interesting - serie of Panthers after being shot from 1000m by T-34/85s. We can see the spread pattern and where it's center lays:

From my recent test of T-34/85 M1943 vs armor of Panther A mid (about 100 hits so far at ranges from 100m to 800m) it seems: - the Panther front lower hull is vunerable (all clean penetrations) up to 600m and probably much further (I got no hits at longer ranges so far, can't tell) - the Panther front upper hull is nearly immune vs 85mm AP M1943. For 70 hits counted at ranges from 100 to 700m there was only one single penetration. It happened at 600m. - there were two hits at front turret, one Partial Pen. at 200m and one Spalling at 400m - there were 4 hits at the mantlet (weapon mount). Two ricochets at 100m and 200m, and two penetrations at 400m and 800m. Interesting - the first mantlet ricochet (at 100m) was a hit at the lower edge of the mantlet, and it ricochetted into the top hull (second hit decal generated there!). It didn't penetrate there and only "hit: weapon mount" txt was generated. I have a screenshot. Summary: Panther A mid front upper hull seems to be quite immune to 85mm AP (at least from M1943 model), it ricochets happily 10-15 times in a row even from 100m, BUT there is random 1-2% chance for penetration up to at least 1000m and possibly further. It seems like when it happens, the armor resistance is heavily degraded (maybe even to 50%). I'm perfectly happy with this. The 1-2% of "weakpoint penetrations" may be tratet like hits on joints or edges of the plates - 85mm AP should easily penetrate if it hit the joint between lower and upper plate or at the edge of hull-machinegun port. P.S. On the other hand, in another quick test the same Panther A mid front upper hull was very vunerable against 122m AP up to 1000m (and probably more). I would expect more randomness and good percent of ricochets at those ranges... (Only AP ammo was used, I was not testing the (probably bogus) 85mm HE penetrations.)

It could be "turn on/turn off" feature. Like "hide" or "buttoned" status. If one didn't like it, he would not enable it for his units. Or for his SMG units.

There is no weapon that "sucks all the air" and "creates vaccum than makes the lungs to collaps". It's urban myth. There is even hardly a weapon that consumes all the oxygen in it's surroundings. Because in the open the hot gases (result of explosion/fire) will quickly move up, and fresh air will just as quickly flow-in near ground to fill the area. If someone was so close to explosion/flames that he would "breath" the oxygen-low (and very hot!!) gases, he would most likely die from the explosion/flames in the first place, or die from internal burns after trying to breath hot gases. Lack of oxygen to breath because of explosion/flames could happen only in enclosed space, but then again - if someone was so close to have problems with lack of oxygen, he would die from explosion/overpressure/flames in the first place. Dying from breathing a (already cooled) smoke is another matter and can happen from any fire. It's usually not the lack of oxygen that kills, anyway. Thermobaric weapons or other fuel-air explosion also don't kill by "making vaccum" but by effect of the overpressure and quickly following underpressure waves, which can travel relatively long distances from explosion and may in fact damage alveolis in lungs (or lungs in general) to the point that the person can't breath and would die from lack of oxygen. The oxygen is in the air, was there all the time, just the person can't breath effectively with damaged lungs. The body (colour of the skin) may look like a victim of suffocation -they in fact were, but from lack of oxygen... Someone have seen victims of such explosions, looking like they have suffocated, maybe some military surgerons said they had their lungs damaged, and that's how the myth of "vaccum weapons" probably created itself. This effect is rarely observed during explosion of conventional HE explosives, because if one was so close to explosion of a shell, a bomb or an IED that his lungs were damaged by overpressure wave, he would be probably torn to pieces by the explosion in the first place - again . Thermobaric or fuel-air (or very large conventional) explosions are somewhat different, such explosions create strong overpressure wave of long wavelengt which can travel larger distances and cover larger areas - at some range one can survive the blast (for example in a foxhole), but the overpressure wave is still strong enough to damage the lungs (and other body organs).

It doesn't have to heat up the tank. It's enough (well, depending on crew quality and motivation level) that the smoke and maybe some of the flamming fluid get's into the tank by any hole/slit, the crew is likely to panic just as fellow tanker described. There should be a chance (depending on crew quality/motivation) that flamethrower attack would result in crew panic or even crew abbaddoning the vehicle.

Edited my previous post, check please. Summary: The 85mm HE penetrations at 1000m DO happen, against both upper front plate and front turret of Panther A mid. I've seen at least 3 of them that I double checked the kind of ammo used. 85mm AP penetrations of upper hull at 1000m also DO happen. I've seen two so far. Both are rather rare occurences. Interesting fact: there are more full penetrations than partial penetrations or spalling so far (only one partial penetration, can't remember any spalling after upper plate hit). There is just lot of clean ricochets from front upper plates, with zero spalling and zero partial penetrations, it feels that the armor is well in the safe zone, and suddenly sometimes - BOOM - a single full penetration, with nasty effects - usually it sets the target tank of fire or even detonates the ammo. This raises for me a suspicion that some kind of purely random "weakpoint penetration" dice which may be triggered sometimes. Something like 1-2% chance for 50% of effective armor. Such kind of random event existed in CMx1 engine, have no idea if it was in any form retained in CMx2. Or maybe the 85mm HE shell has just mistakenly got same penetration parameters of AP shell ? P.S. I have one suggestion that I would like to pass to BF about the hit decals - HE hits against armor should rather leave "HEAT ricochet" type marks, than ordinary "AP ricochet" ones. I see that now ineffective 85mm HE hits against Panther front plate looks the same as AP ricochets. HE penetration could get in the future it's own distinct decal mark - somethinng like a big, irregular hole.

I did the same thing you do - 10 x Panther A mid vs 20 x T-34/85 (both models) at 1000m. For long time I didn't get any penetrations, only one partial. But suddenly I started to get one penetration of Panther glacis after another, 1-2 of them happened in each turn. You know what ? They were done with HE shells. After T-34s are down to 10-7 APs, they become to conserve them and using HE shells instead. And they are much more effective in penetrating Panther front upper hull. To penetrate at any range, I guess. So watch carefully with what kind of ammo pentration was achieved. Larger than usuall explosion at hit and no ricochet sound may suggest HE ammo. edit: I just got a true AP penetration of Panther A mid by T-34 85mm from 1000m. The AP ammo counter on T-34 decreased, the Panther become pierced and burning. So it happens too. But 85mm HE penetrations of 80mm plate are a bit worrying for me..... edit2: 85mm HE penetrations are not that often as it seemed at first. Now I got only one 1000m penetration of 85mm He against Panther front upper hull for 73 hits on that plate. But I also got one HE penetration of Panther front turret too... That gives ~2 HE penetrations for 100 hits total. In first test - identical setup, same scenario, nothing changed - I had zero penetrations fro several turns, and then suddenly got 4 HE penetrations in just two turns of HE shooting . I wish I could load a tank with only AP or only HE in the scenario editor, like in CMx1....

T-34 - a T-34/85 for example - with all it's drawbcks, had one VERY important advantage. While being comparable to German PzIV and Panthers (in some regards not much worse, in some other - even better), it was very simple construction that could be produced quickly, in large quantities in simple factories by ordinary workers from simple materials. And this was the advantage that "won the war" (it's tank-related part). If it was much worse than German tanks, this wouldn't work. But it was at least comparable (with a competent crew - which is another story), and yet much "cheaper". What would you chose, going to a war - 3 Panthers or 12 T-34/85s or 12 Shermans ?

Maybe this should be corrected (APBC ammo for IS-2s). I've read in numerous sources that APBC was never used, that mass production was not started because APs become effective against Panthers so there was no need for APBCs anymore. Didn't see any info about it being used, but maybe it was used somwhere, in small quantities.... I checked longer ranges in PzIV vs T-34 shooting. I set the PzIVs on ranges from 2100 to 3000m from a line of T-34s. Over 2300m the PzIVH didn't open fire at all to T-34/85 they spotted :-). I had to manually "target" the T-34s and after some time and some wasted shots, there were few hits. I got few penetrations and few partial penetrations in 2100-2300m range, and some spalling at 2500-3000m so far. But I only got maybe 12 hits so far and it's late, so saved the test scenario. Will continue tomorrow.

I think that CMx2 should model differences in armor quality and thickness between individual vehicles (ideally - for every plate). It should be randomised on the battle start to vary from full quality armor to badly inferior armor, based on assumed probabilities of bad/good quality armor for given vehicle/time period. Such modification would not touch the interface or any game logic, just some database enhancement to introduce separate armor ratings for every tank on the map, and then randomise them a bit. It's the next logical step after the projectile penetration was randomised . ---> DMS - the outome of 122mm AP shell (there were no APBC used during the war) hitting the Panther upper front plate is really so uncertain - depending on so many variables like armor quality, actal armor thickness, shell quality, exact angle of incidence (tank angled, on the slope), and probably even more - that I believe EVERY result is possible (though some are more probably than others) Everything could happen, from boucing the 122mm AP at 100m (some side-angle would definitely help) to armor being cracked, broken or even penetrated at 2000m. And everything in between, depending on all above factors and luck. But on average most penetrations would probably happen between 400m and let's say 1000m.

Isn't the lower plate of T-34/76 sloped only at 53deg instead of 60deg ? I see both values. The shell descent angle at range of 1500m would be in order of 1deg so it's less important than for example meking sure that the target tank is put on really horizontall piece of ground. The penetration of the lower plate visible on the picture was very close to the "reinforced" edge (it was mentioned in the russian txt description of the hits), some plate-edge effects could be involved, it's not the same thing as penetrating a center of a plate. The test without any doubt has shown, that Tiger CAN penetrate a T-34 front from that range (T-34 is not safe by any standards). But not necessarily to penetrate reliably front upper plate if hit somwhere in the center (and not close to edges, driver's hatch, hull machinegun ect). If one shell of two failed to fully penetrate, this would suggest we are close to boundaries of shell penetration potential and much depends on various micro-details. I admit that much can depend on the specific bath of armor plates the T-34 was made with, so I totally believe that sometimes Germans could meet T-34s which could be killed frontally from 2000m with ease, and the a month later they could meet 34s which were hard to kill from 1300m - without any up-armoring. Secodn T-34s could have just 2mm thicker and diffeerently tempered armored plates than the others and on such large angles of incidence this could make such big difference. I wonder what is range for reliable penetration of T-34s front upper hull by 75L48 in CMRT. Have to check. edit: Just checked. A very quick check (maybe 10 hits). PzIV 75L48 vs the same T-34/85s at 2000m, angled at 20deg. Most hits at front upper plate are penetrations, with some partial penetrations (maybe 25%). No ricochets observed. T-34/85 front hull seems to be really weak in game... even for 75L48 there is no problem to penetrate it (slightly angled) from up to 2000m, and occasionally at longer ranges. I wonder if it has something to do with Panther front upper hull being vunerable to 85mm APs... It's too about angled armor.

Van ir, all calculations that you write are, with all regards, but a theory. A theory may be good but some data it uses is wong, and it would give wrong results. So there is a need to verify the theory by test results and combat results. Here we have a test result where 88L56 didn't penetrate front upper plate of T-34. No problems with lower plate, but only partially pierced the upper plate. So in _THIS_ single test this shell obviously didn't have 2000m+ penetration potential. So either it was an anomaly, and other hits at upper plate would penetrate, or some coefficients in armor penetration calculations are not right. For example the shell performance against highly sloped plate, or the armor brittlenes (after all, it the plate didn't crack, and German "softer" plate of similar thickness from Panther side armor - most likely would) or something other. I tried to treat the result of this Russian test (unfortunately, a single test) as a veryfication of theorethical armor calculations. As I said this was a quick one, unfortunately I don't have time to make long tests. You see from the results how much hits I counted - 14. But when you get a proportion of 14:0 then you really don't need 100+ data points to see what happens. A chance that there is _really_ let's say 70% chance of penetration and 30% chance for partial one, and I got - accidentally - 14 clean penetratons in a row, are really, really, really small . There is no need for a greater sample really, when the probabilities drop below 0.01% . The probability of partial penetration (if there is any) at that range is well below 20%, most likely below 10%. Or I had a really bad day . Would be quite different story if I got 11 penetrations and 3 partials, and I wanted to _measure_ the probability of each outcome with good precision. I would need much more shots to do that. At least 100-200 samples.

I've read about a Soviet test where they shot a T-34/76 from a Tiger I gun at 1500m. The T-34 was additionally set at 20deg side angle. Results - there were a clean penetrations of the lower front hull, at the joint of lower and upper plate, and a partial penetration (small hole pierced, but shell bounced into the turret) at the upper right corner of the upper front plate. No other clean hits at the front upper plate, unfortunately. http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=239068&t=1&sid=2c95cb50a1329b2d1fb11597cb27beb0 Additionally an 88mm HE shell hit the very center of the T-34 front upper plate, with devastating results (driver's hatch torned off, the whole plate bent down, some welds broken). (I think a 122mm HE shell hitting this plate would just either break it or throw it to inside of the vehicle) I interpret the results (only partial penetration in front upper plate) in a way, that 1500m is the edge of good penetration performance of 88L56 against 20deg angled T-34 upper front plate. Of course it could be incidental that the only clean hit was a partial penetration, other hits at front upper place could have been clean troughs, but I don't think so. If the T-34 was front-on, non angled, the range would be a little longer (more than 1500m). Out of curiosity I set up this situation in the editor - 7 Tigers E (Med) vs various models of T-34 at 1500m, the T-34s angled at exactly 20deg side angle. I expected penetrations and many partial penetrations of T-34s front upper plate, but there were only clean penetrations - so I quickly changed the setup to 2000m distance to catch the edge of good performance (T-34s still angled at 20deg). The result at 2000m is as follows: Clean penetrations: 14 Partial penetrations: 0 No penetrations: 0 At 2000m Tiger E cleanly penetrates 20deg angled front of T-34s hull. Really cleanly. I wonder where the border of 50% penetrations lay, at 2500m or what ? Do you think it's ok ? Or Tiger Pzgr39 performance against sloped armor is overmodelled ? Additionally in one 2000m test the T-34/85s were firing back (I forgot to block this with cover arc). Of course most of hits on Tigers were ineffective, but there was a single clean Tiger's E (mid) front superstructure hull penetration (between the front light and driver's visor, with vehicle knock-out) by T-34/85 (M1943). At 2000m . Additionally I have noted the number of casualities caused by all penetrations of T-34 by 88mm shells in 2000m tests. Here it is: 0 casualties: 2 1 casuality : 13 2 casualties: 0 3 casualties: 0 4 casualties: 0 5 (explosion): 1 One casualty was the most popular result, with other options only accidental. I wondered if energy of penetration has any effect on number of casualties. Maybe small average number of casualties was because of low shell energy after penetration? I run one round of shooting at only 100m, results are somewhat different, there is a spread of results with the averate around 2, and much wider bell curve: 0 casualties: 4 1 casuality : 6 2 casualties: 4 3 casualties: 1 4 casualties: 0 5 (explosion): 0

+1 I think that tank and ATG crews would carefully estimate the range and takie their time aiming precisely their first shot, if they were safe (not detected yet) and the situation didn't require to shot quickly (i.e. the target is not going anywhere). I read numorous descriptions of such carefully aimed shots in various soldier memoirs.

What was that ? First Russian test of a hand thrown nuclear grenade, dropped from Pe-2 planes by Night Withes squadron ?

I suspect that the flaws in Panther's front upper hull plate were much more likely to matter when attacked by heavy, high calibre projectiles (like 100 or 122mm) than when striken by something with 1:1 or less T/D ratio. I doubt 85mm or 76mm shell could break Panther's front plate, even a brittle one. Sure an armor tempering flaw could decrease it's protection rating even against 85mm shell, but we don't see frontline reports of Panther front upper hull being vunerable to 85mm, do we ? It was rather considered invunerable to anything short 100 or 122mm.

Thanks Volksgrenadier

Do you want to say, that Tiger I tank with it's "dreaded" 8,8cm gun was "lobbing into target" ? Tiger I 8.8 cm KwK 36 muzzle velocity was (according to source) 773 to 800m/s (so practiclally the same as IS-2s D-25T). And it was praised for it's precision, good first-round hit capability out to 800-1200m, and very good accuracy on even greater ranges. So it can be done even with a gun that "lobs on target". You also said, that Tigerfibel was talking about "flat gun trajectory". If Tiger's 800m/s means flat trajectory, why IS-2s 800m/s doesn't ? It's even more flat, as the heavy 25kg shell has better ballistic coefficient and loses less speed with range . Because of it's 780m/s muzzle velocity the KwK 36 was called "high velocity gun" in early 40s. So certainly ~800m/s is not a low velocity gun even with 1944's standards. T-34/85 gun is 790m/s, IS-2 122mm D-25T is 781-800m/s. So practically the same as Tiger's 88L56 or PzIVs 75L48. The difference in practical accuracy can be explained by quality of the guns, ammo and gunsights, quality of gunners (but Russians had some skilled gunners too) and also by the fact that 122mm was much slower firing weapon, so it was impossible to do quick "fire and correct" routine and hit with second or third round. If a 122mm shell whizzled just over a German tank or exploded ahead of him, the German tank surely tried to hide or relocate before the Russians managed to reload . Su-100 gun was 900m/s so just as good as Panther's KwK42. Firing at long ranges was not practical for many reasons. Very low chances for first-shot hit, reduced penetration, and for Russians engaging in a duel with German tanks at long ranges was not wise because German tanks were reloading MUCH faster so they could correct the fire quicker and had much better chance to hit with third or fourth round. Reloading 3 rounds in an IS-2 took about a minute at best, and in this time a German tank could either escape, or fire 6 times in return and almost certainly score a hit. So long range duels with German tanks were not practiced (if not forbidden). Single long range shot from covered position and reverse into cover was more common. And single shot over 1500m has a small probability of first-round hit, even for a Tiger. Most famous long-range hits achieved b by on Tigers and Panthers were achieved by "fire and correct" method and it took numerous shells to finally get a hit. A long range first-round hit was really a lucky shot (with a help of good gun and very good gunner & range estimation, nevertheless still a lucky hit). P.S. (Off-Topic) Interesting quote from a link some of you just shared, aout Russian tests of a Panther tank: "Agility Trials determined that the planetary mechanism lets the tank turn well. Due to a hydraulic servo, the tank is easy to control. The Panther's turning mechanism does not have the properties of a differential mechanism, which increases the tank's stability on straightaways and increases its off-road performance. This gives the tank an advantage over the Mk-IV Churchill and PzVI Tiger. In practice, it was impossible to turn the tank in place. Due to the difference of resistance on either side, the tank could only turn by locking one track and letting the track from the opposite side of the turn go forward or backward. Turning in place can only be done with equivalent resistance on both tracks, which in practice can be done very rarely." So turning in place by "zero radius method" was not only rarely used, but also rarely possible in Panther. It could be done only when both tracks had the same resistance, so for example on a hard road or in hard uniform terrain. Much more practical way of turning in place was to simply block one track, the same method as used by T-34 tanks. But this also has been risky, as one could throw a track or break something in the drive train... Much better and much more safe was to move and turn while moving, if only possible. The funny fact is that the Russian engineer who tested the tank, liked not only Pather's suspension design, but h also liked the transmission design, and called it reliable as it didn't break or cause any problems during tests. Just opposite to the engine, which was said to be advanced design but not reliable, breaking often because of not mature design. So, the Panther transmission COULD be reliable, if made in good quality using good materials .