Amizaur

It's good you did the PzIVH vs PzIVH test - this allows us to isolate the variables: those involved with "being hull down" from those which are specific for different vehicle characteristics. The fact that hull-down vehicles are spotting worse vs free-standing ones and have only marginally better survivability is the most worrying fact for me. Dig-in vehicles with only turret exposed should have survivability much better than free standing ones, by a factor of 2 if not better. It's classic defence vs assault scenario with hull-down (dig-in) defenders and exposed attackers. Could you publish the test scenario please ? I would modify it in a way that free-standing tanks are actually attacking i.e. moving, closing the stationary HD tanks from few thousand meters. I wonder what would be spotting and survivability difference in such scenario, so hull-down vehicles against moving (hunt) vehicles.

Steve, maybe you could ask some official betatesters to test this issue more throughly ? Vanir already did much. I would love to play with some testing but I simply don't have time. I guess others too. If we talk only, instead of do more testing, then probably this is as much time as we can spend on this... I have to say that the whole issue for me is not very important - it would be nice to have it modelled as accurately as it could be (as always), but I can live with current state. There are other issues regarding armor&penetration that are bothering me much more than that. But I enjoy this discussion about "how it should be" - even if we don't generate enough test data to convince you to do any changes, it's still interesting to talk about it and discuss it.

It was mentioned. Here's an example: But it is much less likely in case of sloped armor. There are large lateral forces acting on the shell which cause it to turn, slid or tumble - it doesn't help in "staying in place" in the pierced hole. In case of sloped armor (let's say over 30deg) the shell would usually either penetrate completly or slid/bounce and fly away. Sometimes it can break and half of it would penetrate the armor, the rest would fly away tumbling. This ilustration doesn't show such break-up, but I don't have one that shows .

Simple question - what happens with a shell that hits an angled armor (let's say the angle is between 30deg and 85deg) and doesn't penetrate and doesn't barely penetrate (with could result in it being stuck in the armor plate) and doesn't break into pieces? Every other shell will bounce away in some direction and this is called "a ricochet". So this is quite normal for a non-penetrating hits against an angled armor plate. No matter what the shell diameter, type, velocity - if the shell doesn't penetrate or desintegrate it has to go somewhere. It won't just stop in place. Now if we know that shells do ricochet, and most of non-penetrating hits o Panther mantled would ricochet, we need to know what area of the mantlet would give such ricochet angle that the projectile would hit the hull roof. Look at the geometry - IMO almost any shell that hits the lower part of the mantlet and doesn't penetrate, would end hitting the hull roof. Now the next question is - what part of those shells would ricochet with enough energy to penetrate the hull roof ? IMO shells that hits the area of about 1/3 height of the the lower part of the mantlet would not only ricochet into the roof, but also could retain large part of their energy after the ricochet. If that remaining energy is enough to defeat a 17mm plate, then we get a penetration. Of course a 45mm shell is not likely to penetrate the roof even if it retained 30% of it's initial energy after ricochet. On the other hand, a 600m/s 6kg 75mm shell that retains 10-30% of it's energy after the ricochet is IMO quite likely to penetrate the 17mm roof.

The mantlet is rounded. No matter what the descent angle is, 0deg, 0,5deg, 1 deg or 2deg or -3deg, there is always some place on the mantlet vertical profile resulting exactly the same hit angle. 1deg of difference in descent angle is corresponding probably to about 0,5cm of mantlet circumference (so probably 0.25cm of mantlet height) the "ricochet zone" on the mantlet is much larger than that so it really DOESN'T MATTER what the descent angle is (the higher, the better) as long as it's not minus 10deg because then the ricocheting shell can miss the roof completly...

I don't have ballistic tables for any German or Allied ammo - but the trajectory could be simulated quite accurately using some ballistic simulator tool - if we know V0 and some additional data, like velocity profile or time of flight to known range. I have ballistic tables of some Russian guns only. Here is some data for 800m range: ...gun type......shell type.......MV.........TOF....Impact Vel...descent angle 122mm D-25.....BR-471.....781m/s.....1.1s.....680m/s.....0 deg 26' 100mm D-10.....BR-412.....895m/s.....1.0s.....771m/s.....0 deg 22' 85mm D-5T.....BR-365 ....792m/s.....1.1s.....717m/s.....0 deg 27' 85mm D-5T.....BR-365K...792m/s.....1.1s.....653m/s.....0 deg 27' 76mm ZIS-5....BR-412.....662m/s.....1.3s.....583m/s.....0 deg 34' So on 800m it's usually about 0.5deg

Let me repost the picture of the Panther ricochet: The actual height of the hit was, I believe, about the red line. Now if the shell hit a little bit lower, it would ricochet into the front turret plate and then maybe into the roof, but that would be second ricochet and the shell would retain maybe 10% of initial energy. So I believe the blue line is the lowest possible height of hit that is likely to ricochet into the hull roof. If the shell hit above the orange line, it would probably spend most of it's energy on deformation of the mantlet armor, then bounce back, missing the roof. The red line is what I believe highest where ricochets into the hull roof are likely. Now if the shell hit somwhere in the middle, between the orange line and blue line, chances for ricochet into the hull roof are in my opinion quite high - maybe as much as 50%. The shell HAS TO ricochet somwhere, and it would be most likely in the direction of the hull top armor - because why not? The shell would probably retain much of it's energy, maybe enough to defeat the top armor even hitting it sideways. IIRC the shell that penetrated the hull of Bovington Tiger possibly defeated the top hull going sideways. Look at the shape of the patch: http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal36.htm The shell penetrated 25mm of hull's top after three ricochets (!) - but each one deflected the shell's trajectory only by small angle, so it retained most of it's energy. The Panther has only 17mm of hull top armor. If the chances for such ricochet were in order of 0.1% then I doubt the Germans would bother modifying the mantlet in G model. They lost quite a few Panthers in this way on the East.

Yes, it's some kind of "slomo" but it would not slow-down below the framerate limit. If some event was shorter than a single frame, it would not be catched.

Hm, the "straight" penetration of hull top armor at this angle should be just impossible. The shell descent angle is very, very small (I guess it's minus 1-2deg). Som maybe it was a shot-trap activated only it doesn't show ricochet text because - for example - it's almost instantly overwritten by penetration text ? It would be nice if there was any way to SLOW DOWN RealTime gameplay in CMx2 by x10 or by x100, for test purposes . Is there any way to slowdown a process in windows and would such trick work on CMx2 engine at all ?

I agree with everything WynnterGreen wrote. I would only add that a "Reverse" movement speed for guns would greatly increase it's chances to be quickly withdrawn back from firing position - and hided behind a ridge or a building. Currently before a gun can be withdrawn even few meters backwards, it first has to be turned 180deg... That's ridiculous AT guns can't be concealed or masked in game, usually they are spotted as easily as if they were just put in the middle of a field (I hope that will change it the future, when it comes to Eastern Front). To increase their survivabiliy they could at least be able to maneuver as well as they could in real life when manned by competent crews.

About 25-30 years ago, a Schwimmwagen was parked on my playground . I played on it as a kid . Of course back then I didn't know what kind of car it was. It was just an old, small, strange looking olive-green car with a propeller behind, parked on my uncle's yard on his farm. I lived there, the large farm was divided in half between my dad and my uncle. The story was that some guy that owned a Schwimmwagen asked my uncle to store it for him. Don't know why, maybe the guy didn't own a garage. It was in Poland, in the years before the 1989. So for few years a Schwimmwagen was just parked in some bushes on a yard, partially covered with some tarp, sometimes not. I remember the strange shapes, small narrow tires and especially the folding windscreen . It didn't have seats, IIRC, but other than that, it was in working state - I was told that when they brought it, the guy with my uncle played with it and tried to swim on a nearby lake - and it was swimming . Unfortunately, I don't know what happened with it later. In those times in Poland (before the 1989), such things (surviving German military stuff) were not worth as much money as today and collecting them was seen as something somewhat wrong. Not much people were interested in it, anyway. Today it's another story. I wonder, where it is now - probably not in Poland anymore - and what was it's story.

Yes, and they should rarely be armed at all, if they bailed out. In CMx2 if some soldiers are armed and are not pinned or panic, they use their armament against the enemy they see. This is not how it works in real life for bailed out-crews. (In fact - for all soldiers, but for the crews especially). Bailed-out crews usually are not Rambos and fire only in self-defence, they would not shoot at the enemy if they don't have too - they do not want attention of the enemy. They want just to survive. This behavior would be best modelled by a state of panic (IIRC they rarely shoot in panic, mostly run) or by just disarming the crews. They would be just targets that try to run or hide, and that would be ok. Of course best would be to code separate kind of behavior for bailed-out tank crews. As you said - a big drop in morale and proficiency, and I would add - rarely armed, and if armed then shooting only in self-defence, just trying to hide or get the hell out of there.

You guys explained this already, so only some pictures: http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr11/MrDyzio/1-72%20StuG%2040%20LWP%20-%20Revell/P1000638_zps0033de3b.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~szee1a/Bovington_Tanks/DBZ_6828.jpg http://i.ebayimg.com/t/WWII-German-relic-Stug-40-Ausf-G-7-5-cm-gun-barrel-support-STUGIII-RARE-/00/s/ODk5WDEyMDA=/z/x2cAAMXQ-3NRj-Zr/$T2eC16dHJHQFFhPkJ074BRj-Zq0kMQ~~60_35.JPG

Maybe he is so effective because - even outside of tank - he is still radio-linked to his HQ ;-) (headphones).

The range was about 800m yards so it was important both gunner and commander could see the target - the gunner often couldn't see the tracer of the outgoing round and then had no idea if it hit or where it hit. Two pair of eyes increased chances for proper range estimation and corrections. From the description above, we have no idea what was the position of the target - if he presented a broadside, or maybe was angled... Do we know, what was the tank that was shooting ? What gun ?

Regarding all the B&W historical videos from youtube - it's very valuable source of information, BUT before using it as a proof that something could move with some speed or turn that fast, we should be sure that the video FPS is properly synchronised and it's showing really in REAL TIME. Many of those films were first converted (or not) to TV 50/60Hz format, other were displayed on TV without FPS conversion. Watching those youtube historical videos I often see signs of them being played too fast - like people walking with faster than normal pace. I guess some of those historical videos ARE properly synchronised and showing things in real time. And some ARE NOT. So before taking any video as a "proof" of something, this detail should be determined -is this tank moving/rotationg with it's true speed, or is the video accelerated a bit ? It helps, if there are people visible on the video, walking or running, things falling, clouds of smoke moving. If not, it sometimes just hard to say... I just wanted to say that it's something that should be considered when watching them.

Tiger II could have relatively low ground pressure, that means it could move forward across soft ground as good or better as other tanks. But as someone said, ground pressure is only one many factors of maneuverability! Tiger II was HEAVY. It was underpowered. It's engine had to work very, very hard to accelerate it and move trough softer ground, it had no power reserve, it easily overheated. Turning in place or any hard turns on soft ground would be slow because of the increased drag, if turning in place the tracks could easily be blocked by soli/mud or even thrown / broken. The final gear was strained, fabricated from poor quality steel, it could be easily broken when the drive train was strained during hard maneuvers. Especially if trying to turn in place. Tiger II from Samour looks good and accelerates nicely on a hard surface. Please find a video where it is traversing on soil, grass, softer ground. The engine is screaming, acceleration is slow, maneuvering is slow. In game Tiger 2 was accelerating well, and it's was THE FASTEST TURNING tank ! It turns in place faster than Panther, faster than anything other. When moving, it turns even twice faster than when turning in place. If ordered forward with a turn, it rotates amazingly fast. Having also a fast turret, Tiger 2 in game even on soft ground points its gun and faces front hull to any enemy in seconds. I checked a version ago on different ground types, even in forrest or mud it turned fastest in game. I hope this was corrected so far in some patch. Tiger II as just too heavy for it's engine and for quality of it's power train. It's cross-country manevering ability looks good on paper only. I guess a Jagtiger on paper looks not that bad either. The specs, mean groud pressure, power to weight ect. It doesn't look that bad also in some propaganda films, field tests. But in reality a Jagdtiger's mobility was simply a disaster - according to Otto Carius. From quotations that other gave, I see that Americans praised German's tank mobility, and Germans praised American's tank mobility. Everyone believied the oher side has advantage. They noticed mainly shortcomings of their tanks and advantages of enemy's tanks. Many reports are biased. It's true that German tanks sinked less in soft ground than American tanks, it's true German tanks could turn tighter, blocking one track completly (but it was risky). American tanks had to turn while moving, with some minimal radius and were jealous about those hard in-place turns. But it was mainly Panther and to some extend Tiger I tanks that were more maneuverable than Allied tanks. Tiger II was much more heavy and underpowered, the driver had to treat it with great care to not break it. It was quite fast and maneuverable on hard surface, but not really on soft ground, especially if it was not flat and they had to climb some elevation sometimes... Of course it WAS quite maneuverable for a HEAVY tank, it compared nicely with some other HEAVY tanks like KV, IS, I guess with a Churchil too. But it was not a level of maneuverability of medium tanks like Panther or T-34. It just wasn't. And it should turn slowly, climb slowly and accelerate slowly on soft ground in game.

For me, the RT mode is missing one very important feature - on-screen txt alerts that would tell me, that some of my troops spotted an enemy and that some of my troops are taking fire or even taking casualties. Especially for those of my troops that are not visible at the screen. When I'm focused on some part of map where some action is taking place, I have no idea that on other part of map my tropps spotted an enemy or maybe are just dying. When I take a look there, they may be all dead and I even have no idea where the fire came from. I'd like some txt messages somewhere on the screen telling me that my unit xxx had spoted an enemy or that unit yyyy is taking fire. Even better would be a swichable/configurable automatic pause triggered by some events like spotting, taking fire, taking casualties.

An argument "real soldiers didn't have that" could be used against almost any thing in game. Like god-like view of the battlefield, exact knowledge what other units do, map borders, instant identification of unit type when spotted, ect, ect, ect. The "realistic" game simulating a force commander would be a single first person view from ground level, a map, and lot's of voice communicates of what is happening, with extreme misinformation and Fog of War. Anything other can be voted against with "real soldiers didn't have that" argument. So it's realy not a good argument. I agree with Erwin - any any game aids such as the info pop up screen are a good thing, period. The player can use them or not use, if he didn't like it. I know player that play the CMx2 game from ground level view only. Not using god-like view, he has very limited idea what is position of his troops in relation to enemy troops, he can see only terrain features that are visible for his troops, he has much harder time planning any maneuvers. But he doesn't vote for removing god-view from the game. He just doesn't use it...

Well... that's true

I think it would be really strange if CMx2 dispersion model was still based solely on muzzle velocity . I want to believe that gun/ammo database in CMx2 has some separate value for projectile dispersion . It's possible that dispersion is still related to muzzle velocity but corrected by some dispersion coefficient (initially set to 1.0 for all projectiles and only changed if required).

I checked and I see I was wrong with the Tiger's "nearly horizontal" front hull plate. It was much more thick than I remembered - it had 60mm, and it seems it was welded to the rest so it would be hard to use it as an opening to the transmission compartment. Have no idea when I heard/read about that, I'm sorry - I should check this before writing .

"a shame rather that the front of the tank is shaped like that. If they could have connected the top edge of the hull to the front nose, like the JS-2 -> 2M modification, not only the frontal protection is increased, but also internal space of the tank." They could not, from two reasons. First is quite funny - when the Tiger I design was made, they didn't have on hand an MG mount that could be installed in a sloped front plate . It was developed later for Panther tanks. Second, IIRC the nearly horizontal plate had to be relatively thin because it could be raised and it was some kind of opening to the front transmission compartment (correct me if I'm wrong) needed for field repairs and maintenance. And at last - when Tiger I was designed, no one thought about any enemy gun that could penetrate the vertical 100mm plate. There was no need to inrease protection, 100mm of armor was considered enough. If they used design, they would use thinner plates . For example it could be 60mm if it was sloped to keep the effective protection level around design target of 100mm RHA . Anyway, if they retained the 100mm thickness and made it sloped - the Tiger would be heavier than 56 tonns. Vertical armor layout was easy to design and simple in manufacture, they could use many elements similar like in PzIV (vision slots ect) only make it thicker. The armor design wasn't any brilliant piece of engineering, they made it just thick and solid and good quality, believed it's a good decision. Later as it turned out, it wasn't. There are more optimal designs. 80mm sloped 50-60deg - like in Panther - would be a better decision. Sloped 80mm plate offered level of protection that more than 1.5x better than vertical 100mm. IMO if the designers of the Panther tank knew how good protection will Panther's front hull 80mm/55deg armor offer in practice, the Panther would have 60mm/55deg armour instead . I'm sure they didn't plan level of protection of 150-180mm of RHA for hull, they thought about 100-120mm of RHA so similar to the level of protection offered by front turret armor. Or maybe designers knew that, but some officials like Hitler himself, wouldn't agree for 60mm front hull armor for Panther. I heard that Hitler was disappointed by fact, that "his new tank" Panther has "only" 80mm of front armor, he said it has to be 100mm! Only when they said to him that sloped 80mm is as good if not better than vertical 100mm, he accepted that Back to the Tiger I basic armor design - any serious changes in existing project were unpractical (too much redesign needed if front plates were touched, it would delay production lines) and forbiden. Instead of that, they designed an improved version, increased the front protection using sloped plates (using a newly developed MG mount) - but this project was a too-heavy tank called Tiger II, so a completly different story.

Then what all the "front superstructure" hits means ? The "front superstructure" hits were showing as "no damage", "spalling", "partial penetrations" ect. The "front upper hull" hits were all "no damage" with no exeptions. I assume "front upper hull" here is the nearly horizontal plate covering the front transmission. The strange thing is, there were a lot of "front upper hull" hits and the 70-deg plate has very small cross-section when looking from the front.

I have to admit that after seeing your test results I, ehem, forgot about armor flaws and thought about shot shatter gap - wondered how to see it. That's where my question about shattering came from... Anyway, watching the results I saw very little difference between both tests and wondered if it's enough to draw any conclusions... It showed, that the error is about 10%. Now I tried your test setup but moved the Tigers to 1000m. I did only about 30 samples, but it was obvious that the results changed dramatically, most of the hits being ineffective (~50%), ~30% spallings and ~20% of partial penetrations. Difference in penetration between 500m and 1000m for 76mm gun is about 10% and it was EASILY visible even with small number of samples... What difference should we expect from armor flaws modeling ? Minus 10% or mayby minus 5% of armor resistance ? It would have similar effect like changing the range by 250-500m. I believe that such difference in armor quality would be easily noticeable in test results (the proportion between spalling/partials/full penetrations would shift by more than the possible 10% error). I have written down 33 front superstructure hits from your initial test setup (savegame - Tiger Late, 500m): 1 ineffective hit, 7 spalling, 25 partial penetrations and 0 full penetrations And a lot of ineffective hits on "front upper hull" (whatever it is)