shift8

Ok, but that doesnt mean the result is how it should be. There was nothing about the geometry of that shot that would have prevented it IRL. If there is some kind of depression effect screwing with the gun, then it needs removed. Also, the commander taking small arms fire should not have had any effect what-so-ever on the outcome there, as the gunner could have prosecuted the engagement on his own at that point. Some small arms fire would not disrupt the gunners trigger finger, or over ride the necessity to shoot the big ass tank right in front of him. If there is some sort of gun elevation delay going on that needs removed, although I still dont see any significant depression in that engagement.

If the angle was too deep you would not be able to shoot at all..... There is not (or should not be) any penalty to aiming a point blank range. At the distance in the video the commander could have aimed the gun himself if he had the controls. Gun depression does not factor into this. This is a thing that should be apparent since the Panther clearly has no trouble shooting back, despite not facing the right direction at first.

There was nothing about the shot in the second video that was difficult or too low. That was a easy shot a point blank range. Also, tanks do not take "penalties" in real life when aiming because they have depressed their guns. You either have sufficient depression or your don't. If you do have the depression, the shot does not become more difficult simply because you lowered the gun.

Thanks for input guys. What I am finding most confusing here is that they are stationed opposite the US 1st infantry division around caumont, but noone ever mentions the fighter there etc. On of my books claims that the 1st inf took caumont in july as well. I know that they (2 Pz) was deploy against the brits in june, and that 1 one of the panzer battalions was temporarily lent in late june to the brit side during epsom. But then in July its always shown in first army sector, implying it is engaged with the US 1st infantry div.

Thanks, hopefully we can get BFC's attention on this and maybe get a fix. On a side note, my friend was telling me that he suspects that the slow reaction stuff they added to the tanks to reduce their effectiveness against ambushing infantry might be contributing to the general problem.

It would be insignificant. And there isnt any dispute as to how the gun performs. It is performing accurately for its most common ammo type in the time frame of the game. In the later months it gets some HVAP and can pen the glacis at 400m and the turret at 1000+. However, M82 APCBC is the most common round of the 90mm gun and it is useless vs the glacis even at point blank range excepting when it strikes a weak point as Vanir pointed out. It can however, pen the turret and lower hull at well over 1000m.

+1

Ok this is just a shout out to anyone who might have some hard data on this. So I am finding it hard to determine which front the 2nd Panzer fought on in the battle of normandy. What I mean by that is whether or not they were deployed against the Americans or the Brits/Canadians during the month of July. Looking a Maps from the Army CMH, 2nd Panzer appears to be deployed opposite American divisions in the American sector of the front. Yet, the text regarding this division is contradictory. I haven't seen anyone claiming 2nd Panzer was deployed against the British, but different books differ one whether they count in the 2nd panzer as being there, even when the maps indicate it is. For example, one book I have declares that in July there were 3 Panzer and one PzG division on the western side of the front, but others only claim 2 and one PzG. Does anyone know for certain? In particular I mean from the beginning of July till around the 18-20th.

Another thing to consider regarding German armor is that the the big cats, in particular the Panther, were rare animals operationally because they were extremely mechanically unreliable. The original Panther D had a operational rate of only 16%. While the later models were better, the general operational rate of Panther units was about 30-45% of tank inventory for a given units (even on the later model Panthers like the A or G). The highest operation rate ever achieved was by the units in Normandy just before the fighting started because they were sitting around doing nothing, which tends to make maintenance easier. By the battle of the bulge most units were sitting around at a mere 25% or so. Not due to combat losses, but from mechanical failures. This mechanical unreliability was mainly due to the fact that the Germans used a spur gear in the final drive which caused failures if not handled gently. On top of this, the final drive on the Panther was hard to work on due to its placement in the tank, and that meant that when such a failure occurred the tank was sidelined for long periods. The Panther was indisputably the best tank of the war from a point of view of pure combat potential, but it only when it was running. In Summary: A tank that cannot show up for the fight may as well not exist.

So there may be some room for nuance here, but while I agree on penetrating stuns, I would caution very very strongly against non penetrating stuns. There is already a mechanic in place to simulate crew function being eroded due to shock or simple general anxiety. Non-penetrating hits would in most cases, unless the crew is totally ultra-green, no really have much of an effect on the crew. At least not the the point of "suppressing" or "stunning" them. Tank IRL do not get "stunned" in the same sense that a pinned down infantry squad might. I add this caveat because I have seen what the actual in game effect is when something like that is added. In the Wargame series there were these non-pen stuns. It made the tank combat extremely silly. For example, 20mm cannon could "stun" tanks to such a degree that auto cannon fire was basically the equivalent of suppression fire on a infantry man. Tanks that were hit with non-penetrating hits from at guns or atgms or tank cannons would get "stunned" diring which time they could not return fire or aim accurately. This allowed much smaller vehicles to frontally engage tanks they should not have. I wont say that it should be completely disregarded, but that it should only apply to the most extreme situations: like maybe overpressure from a HE round or something (a very big one). But it certainly should not apply to simple AP hits.

Hit text is on, you may have viewed before the res incrresed. there were 4 upper rear hull complete pens, 1 lower complete pen, 1 partial sides, and 1 complete pen side. So 6 complete pens.

The following is a excellent example of why their should be some kind of stuffing(only when penetrated, and not 100% of the time.) effect on tanks: or at the very least a look at the engine DM.

Ah that explains it then. It only happens like 1 in 10 so I think that is pretty well modeled. Honestly I only saw it happen twice out of way more than 20 hits, so probably less than that.

Good lord I want to see those!

Update: I tested the 1.01 patch and the 90mm is now performing accurately as it if were firing the most common round (M82). It cannot penetrate the panthers glacis even at 200, unless it shoots APCR. During the later months, you will occasionally see "AP" penetrate up to 1000m, which I presume is because every so often a T-33 shot is modeled.

I would imagine not too much, since there are tons of other units in the game that have no associated rotation speed but do have target acquisition. Also I dont think we should discount a fix simply because it is hard to code. If BF shied away from complexity, combat mission wouldnt even exist. And if they coded something in a way that makes something unrealistic, it should still be fixed.

There is already distinction between those hit types. BF confirmed in a earlier thread that "hits" and "partial penetrations" are both situations where the round does not pass through the armor. Both can cause spalling, but the spalling from partials is more severe, since you have a round lodged in the armor in varying degrees. The only hit that is representative of any significant part of the round passing through the plate is the "Penetration", That being said, certain spalling, particularly from partial pens, could cause severe enough damage to stun the crew. After all, sometimes spalling might hit a person or the ammo etc.

I do agree that the general tactical issue here is multi-faceted, and that adding the stunning Vanir mentioned would do the most to alleviate the general issue. Although I dont necessarily agree that we should totally drop the reloading times thing either. Ive been doing alot of testing before and since this thread started, and the average reload speed seems to be about 8 seconds, or twice what would be possible with even much larger rounds. I think the reload time is still important because it would effect encounters where the enemy tank might not be penetrated and therefore not stunned. Imagine for example that the round in Millers video does not penetrate. It would still make sense given the engagement geometry that the Sherman get off the second, and possibly even third shots before the Panther has time to shoot the Sherman. It seems in general that tanks a close range act rather strangely in combat. I most of my testing so far, the Sherman will let the panther drive off 100m past the ambush point before even attempting to rotate the turret. The in game audio confirms the Sherman has seen the Tank, but he just sit there like nothing has happened. I wonder if this is being affected by the changes made to tanks some time ago to try to alter their performance against infantry at close range.....

Wait in what thread did I ever ask for super sharp shooter abilites? In the rifle thread I was staunchly on the side defending the game and pointing out that the riflemen should not be uber accurate...... I said I was still trying to figure out how best to present the issue at hand, and asked if anyone else had encountered anything similar. It is hard to replicate this in a test with enough controls to show what I have seen several times in other games. I am still working on making a video for this. I think captain millers video though shows some of the problems, even with just the aim on the second shot. Lastly: do you suspect something interesting? or do you suspect the video was edited?

Also noted in that video is that it took him 7.7 seconds to fire the second shot. Instead of the 4 seconds that even a 120mm gun can manage.

It is unlikely, and he is the only one I ever knew. He is a well known member of the community. You may find it hard to believe, but it is the case. He has been around for years. He plays less often now but Aces High has been around for 16 years. He flew more back in the day, but still gets on sometimes.

I think assuming this is a little bit dismissive. I won the battle in question, and it was in SP. Ive been observing this and similar stuff for over a year, and have been putting off saying anything about it at least partially because I knew that as soon as I posted it someone would accuse me of just being grumpy that my tank blew up. Please do me the courtesy of not presuming I am that short sighted.