Kauz

Well...LukeFF, correct me please.... i have a very reduced picture of what a medic in the field is capable of. I could imagine that first things a "first aid medic" is capable of doing would be like: 1: a) trying to reanimate in case it is needed (by hand, defibillator and/or inject adrenaline ...or whatever). stopping the bleeding ( or at least try to reduce it at the possible areas (at peripheries) .....- inner bleeding are problematic i think....- 2: a) giving pain-medication giving blood-conserves (or at least plasma) 3 c) orientates the body (stable side position) (in case he is not wounded at the spine/backbone) d) applicates some disinfection to the wounds and bandage them e) splint the fractures Some of these things are more needed/important and some need may be a not prone position. I do not think that a field-medic is able to perform like a "surgeon".... He is more like a emergency doctor or less. So i think that his task is especially to do the things which are necessary in the first seconds and minutes after the injury. And this wise the medic....if he is a brave one ...always try his best to reach a wounded man and help him, even if he has to prone for doing his work. I think especially 1b) and 2a) are possible and necessary in a prone-position.

SA = spotting ability..... at least this is what make sense...and how i interpretated it.

Exactly!

That is generally correct...i understand your point. On the other side...: Sometimes some numbres like 85% armor quality and 95% armor quality dancing around here. And sometimes you can see in penetration tables that rounds loose penetration power more than expected if they have to penetrate an angled or very angled armor plate. These effects are more or less about 5-15%. So i am not sure if it gives point to assume that a for instance a 20mm plate has only 20mm (or even 16 ;-) ) @ 70,5 ° while it should have about 60mm. There is not only a loss of 5-15% like at other effects....it is 75%. So i do not think it is convinient to assume for (very) low T/D ratios this formula.....i would recommend to stay at the cosinus like behaviour then. To illustrate the problem a little more the following comparison: http://www.directupload.net/file/d/3649/nrb4waiv_jpg.htm Like you can see ...the B results becoming completly utter the more the armor thickness decreases and we " have" to assume always the nominally thickness till we reached a nominally thickness of 22mm. Much more interessting is to observe what happens at thickness about 40mm. Despite the armor is still heavily overmatched.....(*40mm/76,2mm ~Factor 0,5) .....the calculated armor is thicker than the cosinus-function. First time the calculation shows a overmatch behaviour is under 39mm....nominally thickness. My conclusion is: that even at this big overmatch Factor of 0,5 (40mm/76,2mm) the angle of 70,5 ° still provides the same or better protection like a cosinus-function is doing so. In the opposite the formula becomes very utter alright under 30mm. As long as i do not have more data/information about this formula.... My approach would be more like assuming a cosinus-function instead of loosing 75% of my armor protection.

....so this wise we see it the same way According to your citate: The APBC program equation is valid within the range of test penetration data, and may produce unrealistic results when used for T/D ratios below those included in base data. I would like to ask...: What was the lowest T/D ratio they tested? Because if the book itself mentions that the formula may will produce unrealistic results with T/D below the tested ones ...than you can be sure that these unrealistic results will far more increase with more extreme low T/D ratio. What i try to say is, that in case the lowest armorer thickness they tested was for instance 50mm ....than it may not make any sense to transfer this formula for a 20mm plate..... Some indications that you never should use this formula may be the following: -The further afar (lower) the calculated result is from the nominally thickness (and 16 is far under 20) the less reliable the formula is ....and the less it is convinient to even assume 20mm instead of 16mm. -The less consistent the behaviour gets the less reliable the formula is for your case. In our case it is very suspicous that the armor thickness decreases which increasing angle. To assume that at all angles then would be 20mm is not a good way to go. It makes the formula not more useful. Additionally: I would guess that the most important effect of overmatching is caused by the point that one part of the round (the lower part which has its impact before the upper areas) is causing a deformation of the armor and this wise will not only increase the grip...it will also reduce the effective angle of the armor. So where i have before 60-70° i may only have effective 30-50° left because of the deformation. So i would expect that the 20mm armor may then for instance have about 23-31mm effective armor protection....but only 20mm? If it would only have 20mm.....i had no need to angle it anyway.....20mm i have at 0° too

Good to know.... Vanir established this formula without telling about restricions to calculate the special case of 70,5° and the 20mm plate. But then even the result for 70,5° is not correct because it is only meant for angle between 55-60°. Another point i discussed with a physicist-friend is the problem that it makes no sense that an armor plate has less protection then it nominally thickness. What i mean is, that 20mm @ 0° is simply 20mm.....increasing the angle will always increase the armor-protection, too. The only discussion is how far this increase will go. For example: A 20mm plate at 0° is just 20mm. This is for the physical fact that you always have to spend kinetic energy of the round to break up the potential energy between the atomic bounds. This fact you will never be able to evade. Further: Cosinus like it would have minimum 59,9mm minimum (@70,5°), because of the geometrical armor protection. Because of the Overmatch problem i can argue and imagine a lot under the 59,9 mm.....BUT NEVER under 20mm. I mentioned this because the formula (ignoring it was may be wrong one for this angle) gave us: 16,8mm ........... This leads me to the next question: Is there a limitation for the armor thickness respectively the T/D-ratio ? Because ....if you calculate for a 20mm armor like you said only between 55-60° then you will find following results: 55°: 19,7 56°: 18,87 57°: 18,14 58°: 17,5 59°:16,95 60°:16,49 These results does not make any sense for two simple causes: 1. like i said....in a physical way it does not make any sense to assume, that an armor-plate no matter which angle it is orientated,will ever have less armor protection than its nominally thickness (in this case 20mm). 2. It is also suspicious that the armor-protection decreases with increasing angle like you can see.

it gets even more funny: you remember that the 20mm plate had an equivalent armor protection of about 16-17mm @ 70,5° ..., right? Did you plot...what happens for all other angles? Here the answer: 0°: 1874,99 1°: 1701,85 10°: 716,73 20°: 280,52 30°: 114,55 40°: 50,48 50°: 25,51 60°: 16,49 70°: 16,57 80°: 36,84 89,9°: 329,96 no comment..............................................

i hope for it...

another funny example into the other direction... a 67,4mm thick armor plate vs this 76,2 mm round: 0° : 105,74 1° : 105,02 10° : 99,46 20° : 95,78 30° : 96,24 40° : 104,35 50° : 129,75 60° : 206,32 70° : 510,31 80° : 2791,49 89,9°:60960,86 1. thing is that the armor is overmatched by the 76,2 mm round but always pretends to be bigger than its nominal thickness is. 2. thing the armor starts high.......then decreases.....and then increases again. The more i test the formula....the more i think "something" (to be careful) is a little (to be careful again) wrong .... Please give me more information about the forumla...and especially check if you get the formula itself and its condition for proper use in a right way.

Hello Vanir, would like to get further information about the formula..... The formula has obviously limitations......... you may only be allowed to use this formula under special conditions. Why do i think that? you may ask....here comes the answer: For example: Try to use a 200 mm thick armor plate against this 76,2 mm round and tell me what the formula calculates as result. Here the results: at impact-angle of: 0°= 8,06mm :eek: 10°=16,97mm 20°= 36,6mm 30°= 82,34mm 40°=199,91mm 50°= 556,56mm 60°=1981,59mm 70°=10974,68mm 80°=134420,36mm 89,9°= 6520086,52 Sorry...but the Elefants should then have died like flys when they got shot by T-34/76 tanks and only had an equivalent armorprotection of 8-16mm steel instead of 200mm....

It seems that you do not get what i am trying to say... The turrets, and this is well known, are able to: 1. turn fast 2. hit enemy targets with gun better then they should while moving. 3. are able to aim and hit fast infantry with their turret-coaxial-MG. To point 3: Once i had to stop an infantry attack. Within a bunch of minutes i caused 70 infantry casualties with a panther tank on shorter range (50-100 meters) and this mainly by his aimbotting turret-coaxial-machine-gun AAANNNDDD this while driving 40-50% of the time. A heavy machine gun unit in a standard game can be happy to cause 15-20 kills in the whole game. __________ Now back to the original point of the problem.... Yes...nobody told anything else!!!! I try to tell the whole thread that it does this too slow.....and that there is no need to turn the tank-chassis that slow...(the tanks in the game need about 3 times longer to turn their hull than in real life ...that is a problem because the tanks expose 3 times longer than necessary their weak points (for instance: the flank).

Well the turrets behave exactly like this at the moment. Conclusion: -turrets are fast-turners and operate like aimbots (both: gun and turret-koax-MG) even then the tank is moving. -hull is a slow-turner and this only leads to very different outcomes when tanks/assault-guns/AT-guns fighting each other

The tanks turn their chassis/hull/vehicle orientation in generally slow ( i do not talk about the turret) .....no matter if i gave the specific order for such a turning movement or if the TacAI is doing it by itself because it spotted a gun in this direction. That is problem.....

i do not know how long a gunner needs to evaluate the right aiming on an enemy...depends on optics, training, skill and DISTANCE.... But what i know is that there is no need for a driver to rotate his tank 3 times slower when possible into the rough direction of the spotted enemy. Especially not if i recognize that there is a Canon pointing my weak flank....

Well....i thought Combat Mission has a seperate spotting system....the turret and the hull only start turning after a target is acquired/spotted.

That is what i try to say.... Increasing the hull-turning speed does NOT make the tank a terminator unit against infantry (because the turret is already fast and deadly--the Hull does not add real firepower) Increasing the hull-turning speed just would reduce the unrealistic advantages for flanking units and reduce the disadvantages of units without turret. For instance: After a tank spotted a flanking AT-gun the AT-gun in the game now has 2-3 times more time to fight the tanks weak flank than in real life. Or after a Stug spotted a flanking tank, the Stug need 2-3 times more time to orientate in the enemy tanks direction than in real life. time in which the tank can **** the Stug and where the stug in the opposite is not able to return fire. This leads to very different outcomes ....in tank battles.....(the battles against infantry are not affected really)

Answer of BF was that tanks would become like terminators against infantry, right? The problem is the spotting-ability of the tank and the fast turret-turning-speed....not the hull-turning speed. If the tank spots infantry too easy then he is able either driving away or just turning the turret and kill the infantry. The hull-turning itself is not very important for protecting the infantry...it helps not for fleeing from infantry attacks nor for killing issue (the hull-MG in this game is more or less crap---The turret-MG is the real killer) In the opposite the bad turning speed of hull is a big disadvantage (more than it should be) for all tanks which get in a flanked position, against and AT-guns and ambushs.....and for assault guns without turrets.... If you modell the spotting ability right...then you do not need to down-modell the hull-turning speed So it seems that the devs think that their tanks are spotting still too fast other threats especially in the flank....if they would not think like this they would not have needed to reduce the hull-turning speed Conclusion/Solution Suggestion: Reduce the spotting ability of tanks (especially at the flanks), increase the Hull-turning speed (about decreasing the turret-turning speed (at least a little...) we should talk another day)

Hello guys, did anybody had the feeling too, that nearly all turrets change their orientation quite fast (in relation what you sometimes read about the real life behaviour) and that the hull-rotation speed is quite low. Former times i always said to myself....that it is an issue to model the tank behaviour in an abstract way, because the AI can never reflect the decisions and behaviour of a real human lead tank. While i could understand and support it this way at least for the fast turret-turning speed, i had trouble to understand why the tanks need so long to turn their hull....no matter if they are driving and then rotate or standing and then rotate...it always take long. Some minutes ago i just saw again a video of a Stug III turning around on gravel/shingle....and then i thought it might be a good idea to test it on Red Thunder. I bought some ELITE StuG III (all other maximum too). I took different groundtypes: Gravel, shingel, highway, shingel road, open ground and let them drive forward different speed types and than just gave them the drive-order for driving into other direction similar to the video-baviour. One Stug i gave the order to "face" after he reached his turning point, before he drives in the before faced direction. All Stug behave the same way! The all need about 20-23 seconds to fullfill what the Stug III in the video did in about 30-50% of the time. I do not think that it is well simulated if a Elite Stug gets the order to change the orientation, that he needs about 3 times longer than in real live a more or less layman needs to do it. The scene is between 6:50 min and 7:15 in following video: It is worth considering that in a critical situation....the driver should not be that careful and slow/lame like a tommy at his tea time. Especially if you keep in mind that because of the low turret-turn speed the tanks most time more moved their hull orientation first before they adjust the turret aiming. And this especially if they wanted to optimize their armor angle in a dogfight with a enemy tank.... But what do you think? P.S.: The only thing i could imagine is that the engine is stronger in this tank than it was back in time. Some tanks in the video after this Stug seemed to take longer to turn around... But this looked more like some rookie-driving or just people who get the order to drive carefully, because they do not want to harm/stress these old precious things. P.P.S: This was not the first new time video or old war footage i saw where i got the impression that the turning speed of the vehicle is in the game is verrrry very reduced.

Not completly right... You want to go down that road?...Okay...: The tripod weights ~ 20 kg, 3 x extra-barrels more for HMG weights together ~6 kg, the optics weight about ~2 kg. Makes together: 28 kg The extra ammo (~1500 rounds) weights together 48 kg. If the 28kg for the HMG usage leads me only to 10-14% more firepower per minute at 250-300 meters range....than why i do not drop the 28kg away and carry instead extra 875 rounds. I would gladly pay 10% less firepower each round if i get 875 extra rounds. Imagine a LMG unit with 6 men carrying in total 3385 rounds causing at 250-300 meters distance about 9,1 casualties per minute, but in total 283 men. In the oppisite a HMG unit with 6 men carrying in total the only 2510 rounds causing at 250-300 meters distance about 10,2 casualties per minute, but in total only 185 men. You are correct...the LMG is more mobile.....! In opposite the HMG provide more firepower ...this is so far not reflected in game like i try to argue in this thread. Why the HMG should have more firepower? Here the answer: 1. i can observe better the enemy and the impact of the rounds and their effect because i am not bounded as gunner to the machine gun´s rattling body. You can not imagine what a help this is...! I did not like the LMG 42 (LMG3) in my army because you could not see "anything" while you released your burst. 2. I can spot better because of Point 1) and the additional people and gun optics. 3. The HMG accurracy is in general better than with a LMG. So i can decide in which way i want to dispense the rounds of a burst. 4. I do NOT have to care about burst lenght...because my Tripod makes my burst accurate no matter which length...in contrary to the LMG42 which has to bound to 2-7 (usually 3-5) round bursts. So i can decide when it is convinient to fire longer bursts or not and like i mentioned in Point 3) how to dispense the burst (if i do so). For instance: A dense assaulting russian human wave i would for example try to fight with a 25-50 round burst while swinging the gun in a horizontal way from the left to the right.... I guess i would hit a lot of people before they even had recognized that they have to search cover. A LMG unit in contrary is bound to the short bursts aiming a specific target.....especially if the distance increases and the density decreases. 5. I have a better ammo and barrel supply than the LMG. The barrel supply in specific allows me to increase my practical rate of fire and make use of the advantages i listes before (Points 1-4). ___ So when i read that the LMG42 is able to bring 150-180 rounds accurate into target and the HMG42 is able to bring 400-450 rounds accurate into target.....then i can easily imagine why it could be like this..... 400-450 rounds accurate into target does not mean that i spray around !!! Spraying around would be like 1500 or 1000 rpm (which he could not hold long, because of the barrel overheating) It means that if i spot enough targets, that i am able to fight these targets accurate with this practical rate of fire. In my test scenario i tried ensure such conditions. ___ The most important thing i want to see in the game is that the relationship 150-180 rpm LMG42 and 400-450 HMG42 (and 120-150 rpm LMG34 and 300-350 HMG34) is represented in the game. It is easy possible just by reducing the time of aiming for HMG and may establishing some longer bursts. About the concrete outcome of the resulting firepower we can discuss later. One point after the other. And again.... A good gunner with a lot of spotted targets at shorter/medium range is able to produce this amount of accurate firepower. If you have no targets the rpm is 0. If you only spot a target for 10 seconds within a minute the rpm is naturally not this high either.....i think i made it clear...i hope

The behaviour of the LMG and the HMG is the whole round the same. Barrel change or the numbre of barrels is not represented in the game in specific. The HMG42 just fires a 250 round belt than is a reload procedure and then it fire the next 250 round belt. The LMG42 do the same but with a 50 round belt/box. That is what i recognized. This way you can play as long you want in this game (the numbrer of barrels are not modelled in specific)... The HMG42 produces on distances of 250-300 meters 10%-14% more casualties per minute (like you can read here again as summary: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1534411&postcount=174 ) The only thing which is left in favor for the HMG.... (despite it has more men-which is may be not the point anymore if you have a standard infantry unit) ...is that is allowed to fire further than 800 meters (magical range limit for the LMG) and that it has double (~2,5 times ) ammo! The LMG has the potential to cause about 85 casualties with his 1015 rounds between (250-300 meters) and the HMG in relation causes about 185 casualties with its 2510 rounds. So yes ...you are correct.....the big difference is the ammo.... But then i ask myself why i just not only give the LMG a 6 men unit with this ammo-plus if i do not get a relevant advantage with the tripod and the extra barrels???? Why should i carry around this whole heavy crap if it does not bring a relevant advantage? Oh yes....wait....i know the answer....i know what the advantage is....i can fire beyond the magical LMG range limit of 800 meters. And this, like we all know, happens a lot and is needed a lot in CM:RT games. And when this happens we all know how devasting the enemy is impressed by the noise we produce. Well....for people, who seem to insist on the correctness and sacrosanctity of (state of the art) Battlefront decisions, it might be a good way to argue with them....all other ways of argueing, i tried before, fall on deaf ears....

and again ...balderdash.....*sigh* Btw.: you should not do this kind of "quoting"....you just disqualifying yourself even more

support that.... But i think for instance trenches should be concealed anyway, because Trenches were build up a lot before the enemy-arrival. Units regulary get the training and order to conceal their position. Another suggestion would be to bind the conceal-effect/probability to experience of the unit which searches cover at the beginning of the game. Or binding it to the leadership bonus. BTW: Is the concealment-thing of CM:BB completely gone in CM:RT or is it somehow hidden somewhere (like in the experience of the unit)? Does anyone know?

Some support my impression that something is wrong...and RockinHarry in special supported my thoughts too (for instance that effectivesnes of HMG is reduced in the game and longer bursts should be established). I did some tests....i give concrete numbres....i talk like RockinHarry about the tactical usage and possiblities of the HMG in contrary to the LMG ... i even did a calculation of the cool-down process of the barrel. Well and what did some of the other do?.....They just take the easy way out and say...."you are wrong"....and this they "repeat, like you complain about me, "over and over". If this show a thing then that these people (without calling names) show that they are not open-minded. There is no need for me to follow this way of "argumentation". My sugesstion: Give me sources and test set ups...then we can talk in a useful way further...until these special people do not act like this and just take the easy way out by just gag me down, i see not chance for progress. EDIT: Please give me a hint....did i miss something?

same......

Thank you. Correct... the men-density for example in normal games will be far less.... I try to keep this in mind... But like i mentioned once again in "http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1534489&postcount=187" i try to get closer to that problem by using this setup ...especially to eliminate big variations. If i only have produce 15 casualties per game it is somehow less meaningful than to produce 50-150 casualties. Despite that enemy density is a problem all machine guns have. But i admit, high density could be in general a point which is getting in favor for the light machine gun. Because the spread of the burst might lead even to higher casualties if there is always a target next to the aimed target. Nethertheless there is a good mix of shooting into the running direction of the enemy and orthogonal to its running direction. And there is a mix of running people and some who prone. All in all....while i watch these scenarios endless hours i had the feeling that it gives me a proper first impression of the behaviour and relation. - By the way..... Interessting is that at close distance (100-150 meters) the HMG performs 70% better than the LMG (maybe because of K98 and MP40). And at 250-300 meters the HMG performs 10% better than LMG. I would have expected more like an effect in the opposite way.(if you ignore the MP40 effect) ...Hope you understand what i mean... Thanks...because even that seems not to be common accepted thing like you can observe. Well....i am open minded for your impressions or other set-up ideas. You can not imagine how much it would be a relieve to me if you could proof the opposite of my impressions and testings.