Jump to content

Tiger and Panther turret hit location data


Recommended Posts

1 full penetration, 1 partial and 10 spalling out of 67. The spalling suggests that these are hits close to penetrating. Penetration of UK 75mm solid shot at 500m against RHA @ 0° is 105mm for AP and 92.3 for APCBC . The minimum amount of armor a shot going through the mantlet would have to defeat is therefor 190mm, although that does not take into account that the turret armor is sloped at about 10° and the mantlet is cast rather than RHA.

Nowhere did I suggest that penetrations through the mantlet were resulting in penetrations, partial penetrations or even spalling of the front turret, so let's get off that. I simply raised that as another potential source of "front turret" hit reports.

And you have raised another possibility, hits to the forward sloped portion of the turret roof might report as "front armor".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough.

Any theories as to why a fully hull down position nearly triples the proportion of front turret hits compared to partial hull down (and cuts gun hits by 2/3)?

Missed your edit:

And you have raised another possibility, hits to the forward sloped portion of the turret roof might report as "front armor".

Except that I did see 1, albeit just 1, hit labeled as "top turret" in test #6. Plus we know that the forward sloping sections of the turret sides have separate hit labels so it would be inconsistent if the turret roof did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were no side turret hits in my latest test, but I did get a small number of them in previous tests. We know that they are not being counted as front turret hits because they have unique hit text: "right front turret" and "left front turret".

The question really is why are they hit so rarely? The same question should be asked of the forward sloping top turret armor.

Maybe that is because of 500m shooting range ? The aiming of the gunner is so good and the circle of spread so tight, that very rarely any shot lands on the roof or on the sides of the turret ?

Trying the same test on 1000-1500m should generate much more "side turret" hits and give a much more uniform hit distribution pattern along the front turret area. Simply, the spread circle would be 2-3 times larger, covering more than the whole turret area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can actually tell - with difficulty - if a shot is going through the mantlet and striking the turret. In a replay you can zoom in and pause to see the round penetrating one of the 3D models before "exploding" (god I hate that petroleum fireball).

Unfortunately the visual location of hits is very inaccurate in WEGO. The hit will sometimes look to be in a totally different location than what the hit text says.

cmnormandy2011060904192.png

cmnormandy2011060904152.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can actually tell - with difficulty - if a shot is going through the mantlet and striking the turret. In a replay you can zoom in and pause to see the round penetrating one of the 3D models before "exploding" (god I hate that petroleum fireball).

Except that BFC have told us in the past that the drawn trajectory/impact point in WeGo playback doesn't necessarily match the actual, calculated value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that is because of 500m shooting range ? The aiming of the gunner is so good and the circle of spread so tight, that very rarely any shot lands on the roof or on the sides of the turret ?

Trying the same test on 1000-1500m should generate much more "side turret" hits and give a much more uniform hit distribution pattern along the front turret area. Simply, the spread circle would be 2-3 times larger, covering more than the whole turret area.

That's a very good idea.

Test 10 :(

Sherman 76 vs Tiger I mid at 1000m. Tiger fully hull down behind 6m berm.

522 turret hits

* 241 -- 46.2% -- Weapon mount

240 no damage

1 partial penetration

* 185 -- 35.2% -- Front turret

28 no damage

98 armor spalling

57 partial penetration

3 full penetration

* 48 -- 9.2% -- Weapon

* 43 -- 8.2% -- Left and Right front armor (forward sloping side armor, 17 hits left side 26 right side)

43 no damage

* 5 -- 0.9% -- Top turret

5 no damage

There were also a small number of hits on the superstructure front hull and 1 hit on the "armor skirt".

I switched from Cromwells to Sherman 76s because at 1000m the UK 75mm wouldn't be able to penetrate anything.*

So, compared to the other full hull down test at 500m (Test 4, first post) we see that the proportion of hits on front turret armor is identical (35% each) and gun hits are very nearly the same (9% vs 7%). The move to 1000m did dramatically increase the number of hits on the forward sloping sections of side turret and top turret, although they were still a fraction (1/7) of the number of hits on the front turret. The increase in hits on the sides and top seem to have come almost entirely at the expense to hits on the mantlet.

I did pay attention to front turret hits that did no damage. To answer AKD's earlier question, they produced both explosions and ricochets with the former more frequent than the latter.

So we still have several questions. How can more than 1/3 of hits on the Tiger front turret area be striking the front turret armor? And why does moving between partial hull down and full hull down dramatically change hit distribution on both Tiger and Panther turrets?

*EDITED to add: penetration of US 76mm APCBC vs. RHA @ 0° and 1000m is about 106mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you please drop also the scenario file of your test ?

I played the saved game but could not modify it. So the first thing I did at the start was to rewerse the Tigers from 1000m range to 2000m range.

They were not hit during reversing (the dust raised by rewerse movement was enough to hide them from Sherman's view).

Then I counted hits from 2000m. I played several turns and counted up to 138 hits - not as much as you did, but I don't have time for more... I'm also not sure if that was hull down or not, as the raise in the ground was now at 1000m range when Tigers were reversed to 2000m - so probably there was not much hull-down.

The results of 138 hits at 2000m are:

hit / % hits

Front lower hull /5 /3,62%

Front upper hull /2 /1,45%

Superstructure front hull /21 /15,22%

Front turret /35 /25,36%

Left/right front turret /23 /16,67%

Weapon mount /43 /1,16%

Weapon /6 /4,35%

Top turret /3 /2,17%

Top hull /0 /0,00%

skirt /0 /0,00%

There were 8 spallings and 1 partial penetration from superstructure front hits, and 6 spallings with 2 partial penetrations (one turned the tank to destroyed state) from "front turret hits", there was total one casualty (after one of spalling hits).

Weapon Mount / Front turret ratio:

1000m - 1.31 (your results)

2000m - 1.23 (my results)

As the spread pattern gets wider, the number of left/right front turret hits increases, and the ratio of WeaponMount / Front turret hits seem to decrease.

But what surprises me, is that there is ONLY 20% of HULL HITS from 2000m range, with supposedly not-too-much hull down setup...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the forward sloped part of the turret roof is reporting as "front turret". There should also be at least some hits on the cupola. Since nothing is reporting specifically for that, this may also return as "front turret" (and would lead to penetrations/partial penetrations). Fits with the numbers and the change from partial to full hull down. Fits with the visual display of hits. Seems a very probable explanation.

Probably either very lucky glancing hits to the rear half of the turret, or hits to some protruding part of the turret are reporting as "top turret". The fact that these hits are increasing in number with range supports that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trajectory effects?

76-85mm shell fired at 800m/s to a range of 2000m and arriving there with terminal velocity of 600m/s has a trajectory height over the aiming line of about 10m (a parabolic trajectory that is 10m high and 2000m long) and a descent angle of about 1deg 20min, maybe 1.5deg. That's really not much.

Don't know what is terminal velocity of US 76mm shell at 2000m but wouldn't expect descent angle greater than 1.5-2deg. I would not expect much of "trajectory effects" here...

P.S. The theory about commander's cupola hits being counted as "front turret" hits turns out to be true... Tested specifically for that in RT:

cmnormandy2013022100090.jpg

But I also seen hit exactly like that being shown as "front left turret"... Also seen hits almost in center of the mantlet shown as "front turret hits"

I tried to put the Tiger tank half behing a stone building, so the one half of the turret with the cupola would be impossible to hit. And check, if I would see any "front turret hits". Unfortunately, if a tank is half-hided behind a building, it also can't be spotted by the Shermans.....

When I moved Tiger a bit in a way that it's center of mass was just visible from behind of the building, it was spotted and targeted by the Sherman but it's cupola was visible too and it was hit several times, one of the hits (catched by pausing the RT game) is shown on the screenshot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that BFC have told us in the past that the drawn trajectory/impact point in WeGo playback doesn't necessarily match the actual, calculated value.

That always sounded like a bit of a cop out. In my experience it works pretty reliably, especially for the example of rounds going through the mantlet that are either labeled front turret or mantlet hits.

Unfortunately the whole system is so esoteric that it is very hard to tell whether there is a faulty label on the 3D mesh, a penetration through one 3D plate and into another, or an innaccurately depicted shot trace.

I have a feeling there are dozens of buggy labels on various armoured vehicles, and it should be easier to find out other than statistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the forward sloped part of the turret roof is reporting as "front turret". There should also be at least some hits on the cupola. Since nothing is reporting specifically for that, this may also return as "front turret" (and would lead to penetrations/partial penetrations). Fits with the numbers and the change from partial to full hull down. Fits with the visual display of hits. Seems a very probable explanation.

Probably either very lucky glancing hits to the rear half of the turret, or hits to some protruding part of the turret are reporting as "top turret". The fact that these hits are increasing in number with range supports that conclusion.

It is an elegant solution, no question. I wish it were true. Unfortunately there is a mountain of evidence against it.

First off, if you compare tests 6 and 7 you will see that the proportion of damaging to non-damaging hits on the front turret are virtually the same. This is significant because the only difference between the two tests is that one was conducted against a Tiger mid and the other against a Tiger late. The mid has top turret armor 25mm thick, the late 40mm thick.

Secondly, although this theory could partially explain the change in hit distribution on the Tiger between partial and full hull down it does not explain the same change seen on the Panther, which has a uniformly horizontal top turret plate.

But just to be double extra sure I just ran a little test. 10 US 60mm mortars raining shells down onto 10 Tiger mids at 100m with the Tigers facing perpendicular to the mortar facing.

Hits (only hits on turret counted)

Top turret: _____ 104

Right turret: ____ 7

Weapon mount:__ 3

Right front turret: 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. The theory about commander's cupola hits being counted as "front turret" hits turns out to be true... Tested specifically for that in RT:

But I also seen hit exactly like that being shown as "front left turret"... Also seen hits almost in center of the mantlet shown as "front turret hits"

I think all this really shows is that the visible explosion location is not reliable in RT either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "weapon hits" are always shown on the gun barrel, in case of the Tiger there are two "hitboxes" - one is the muzzle brake, second is the place where the diameter of the gun tube increases. Every "weapon hit" is shown as explosion in one of those two places.

On the other hand, I could swear that sometimes the hit locations were shown in wrong places... It would be SO EASIER if we could just ask how is it coded... and help to improve that system....

I remember years ago being betatester for Dangerous Waters sim, when there was a bug in sonar propagation model. But the company said there can't be a bug because they have the knowledge, they have experts, and they are working for military too, so their formulas are ok. They didn't said any details of the sonar model.

So I did series of tests collecting statistical data, plotting graphs and recreating the formulas they have used from that data, then finding the bug on the graphs, and at last recreating the bug in the formula (where spherical spreading of sound was switched to cylindrical spreading: logx^2 is NOT the same as log(x^2) ;P) that produced exactly same kind of bad results. Some other guy knew a bit about assembler and found another way to rectreate the formulas and has found the bug independanty.

Only then they... no, they didn't acknowledged that. Just fixed it quietly in next patch...

Life would be SO easier, if people and companies could cooperate a bit more.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "weapon hits" are always shown on the gun barrel, in case of the Tiger there are two "hitboxes" - one is the muzzle brake, second is the place where the diameter of the gun tube increases. Every "weapon hit" is shown as explosion in one of those two places.

On the other hand, I could swear that sometimes the hit locations were shown in wrong places... It would be SO EASIER if we could just ask how is it coded... and help to improve that system....

I remember years ago being betatester for Dangerous Waters sim, when there was a bug in sonar propagation model. But the company said there can't be a bug because they have the knowledge, they have experts, and they are working for military too, so their formulas are ok. They didn't said any details of the sonar model.

So I did series of tests collecting statistical data, plotting graphs and recreating the formulas they have used from that data, then finding the bug on the graphs, and at last recreating the bug in the formula (where spherical spreading of sound was switched to cylindrical spreading: logx^2 is NOT the same as log(x^2) ;P) that produced exactly same kind of bad results. Some other guy knew a bit about assembler and found another way to rectreate the formulas and has found the bug independanty.

Only then they... no, they didn't acknowledged that. Just fixed it quietly in next patch...

Life would be SO easier, if people and companies could cooperate a bit more.... ;)

...and suddenly the US Navy stopped "losing" foreign subs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an elegant solution, no question. I wish it were true. Unfortunately there is a mountain of evidence against it.

First off, if you compare tests 6 and 7 you will see that the proportion of damaging to non-damaging hits on the front turret are virtually the same. This is significant because the only difference between the two tests is that one was conducted against a Tiger mid and the other against a Tiger late. The mid has top turret armor 25mm thick, the late 40mm thick.

Again you assume that one potential source of "front turret" hits excludes others. Even if the forward slope of the turret roof reported as "front turret", the damaging hits in both tests could be from hits on other locations that report as "front turret".

Secondly, although this theory could partially explain the change in hit distribution on the Tiger between partial and full hull down it does not explain the same change seen on the Panther, which has a uniformly horizontal top turret plate.

Same as above. Why would proposing the forward slope of the Tiger as a potential source of "front turret" hits then exclude other locations on the Panther as sources of front turret hits? In particular, the cupola reporting as "front turret" fits well with the increasing proportion of front turret hits when the tank is full hull down (thus shifting the aimpoint higher). Moving the aimpoint up may also bring more of the turret front to either side of the mantlet within the dispersion area of shots.

But just to be double extra sure I just ran a little test. 10 US 60mm mortars raining shells down onto 10 Tiger mids at 100m with the Tigers facing perpendicular to the mortar facing.

Hits (only hits on turret counted)

Top turret: _____ 104

Right turret: ____ 7

Weapon mount:__ 3

Right front turret: 1

That does argue against the top turret forward slope reporting as "front turret," but given the exposed area of the forward slope from the front, I would expect more "top turret" hits. I would not totally disregard it as a potential source, particularly if the visual display of hits to this area correlates well with a "front turret" report. Regardless, the cupola is there as a source, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again you assume that one potential source of "front turret" hits excludes others. Even if the forward slope of the turret roof reported as "front turret", the damaging hits in both tests could be from hits on other locations that report as "front turret".

No, I'm simply pointing out that one of your alternative front turret hit label locations is significantly thicker in one test than in the other, yet there is no significant change in the proportion of damaging hits as we would expect there to be if that were the case.

Same as above. Why would proposing the forward slope of the Tiger as a potential source of "front turret" hits then exclude other locations on the Panther as sources of front turret hits? In particular, the cupola reporting as "front turret" fits well with the increasing proportion of front turret hits when the tank is full hull down (thus shifting the aimpoint higher). Moving the aimpoint up may also bring more of the turret front to either side of the mantlet within the dispersion area of shots.

Again, the test data does not support this contention. Compare the proportion of damaging hits to the front turret in test 4 (Tiger late full hull down) to test 6 (Tiger late partial hull down). While the proportion of hits to the front turret are over 3 times higher when full hull down the proportion of those hits that do damage is exactly the same in both tests: 23%.

That does argue against the top turret forward slope reporting as "front turret," but given the exposed area of the forward slope from the front, I would expect more "top turret" hits. I would not totally disregard it as a potential source, particularly if the visual display of hits to this area correlates well with a "front turret" report. Regardless, the cupola is there as a source, as well.

The mortar test proves beyond all reasonable doubt that no part of the turret roof is being reported as the front turret.

turrettop.jpg

The portion of the turret top that is forward sloping is at least 1/3 of the total surface area. It is not reasonable to assume that there were 104 hits on the back 2/3 of the turret without a single hit on the forward 1/3. In a similar vein, the cupola presents a much larger target than the mantlet, yet we had 3 hits on the mantlet and 0 on the "front turret".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...