Georgie Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Just lost 3 M10s from one shot from a Tiger. M10 one took a direct hit to the flank and the shell took out 2 more M10s on its flank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDork Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 That's one of those moments where you just stare at your monitor in disbelief before throwing your mouse across the room. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaksteri Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 You should see the shenanigansen of Men of War series, a shot ricochets from a Cromwell's side, knocking it out in the process, and the same round proceeds to rip throught a halftrack, and then hit a rocket launcher 60 meters to the north-west of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Just lost 3 M10s from one shot from a Tiger. M10 one took a direct hit to the flank and the shell took out 2 more M10s on its flank. Well, that's not quite so bad as you might think. 3 M10s flanked by a Tiger probably would have died anyway, absent a deal of luck. The through-and-through just saved the Jerries a bit of time and a couple of shells. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltorrente Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 In a recent pbem, a Sherman bounced a shell off my Panther's turret, and it landed 30meters away on top of my Platoon leader and killed him. When this stuff happens, it drives me crazy, yet it's cool at the same time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The ricochet mechanic is a bit broken in CMx2 in my opinion. I remember in CMA a 115mm sabot bounced from a T-62 and penetrated another one some distance away, knocking it out. You'd think a sabot round would be shattered not to mention it wouldn't approach the last plate at an optimal penetration angle... Also this stuff about WW2 era AP rounds going through a tank front to back through the engine block and still retaining their shape, energy and angle is a bit wild. Would love to see it fixed in 2.0! Otherwise the ricochet are really cool, but AP ammunition staying penetrative forever is a bit meh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 In a recent pbem, a Sherman bounced a shell off my Panther's turret, and it landed 30meters away on top of my Platoon leader and killed him. When this stuff happens, it drives me crazy, yet it's cool at the same time. One Platoon leader with a Sherman shell? Tha wer luckeh! 3 engineers Hors de Combat to a 57mm ricochet is my record. And a fourth scratched yellow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeBrAnTo Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 That's one of those moments where you just stare at your monitor in disbelief before throwing your mouse across the room. lol, indeed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Georgie, That seems extremely dubious to me, in terms of a real world outcome. The default AP round for a Tiger 1 against Allied armor in the West would be PzGR 39, which is an AP shell which is both capped and ballistic capped. There is more than enough armor on an M10 to fuze the projectile when passing through the first one, never mind the others, but to get the kind of outcome you got, I think we'd first have to posit outright fuze failure. I'll be the first to admit I lack the engineering and physics training to properly assess the terminal ballistics, velocity decay, progressive penetrator shape degradation and projectile path alteration as it goes through the M10s in succession, but this strikes me as being in the lots of zeroes.1 range of likelihood. There are cases I know of where something along these lines has happened. I've seen an 88 end to end penetration pic of a U.S. halftrack (in AFV NEWS magazine) in which the PzGr39 demolished the vehicle and exited without detonating. Shot came in through the radiator, skimmed the transmission tunnel, passed inches over the floor of the main fighting compartment, then exited through closed doors. I've read, in TANKS FOR THE MEMORIES an an M5 Stuart which took a point blank through and through turret hit, which also failed to fuze, and amazingly left both crew and tank functional. If someone can plausibly explain the outcome you got, I'd love to read how it could've been done. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Well, that's not quite so bad as you might think. 3 M10s flanked by a Tiger probably would have died anyway, absent a deal of luck. The through-and-through just saved the Jerries a bit of time and a couple of shells. You really know how to make a guy feel better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I recall someone once conducting tests to see how many halftracks in a row an 88 shell would pierce before the burster charge finally kicked in. 88 barely even notices when its passing through 8mm side-armor like so much tissue paper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 If someone can plausibly explain the outcome you got, I'd love to read how it could've been done. It's a deficiency in the post-kill modelling of the round's performance. Simple. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Yep. Lets hope it is fixed in 2.00. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Georgie, Here's another reason to spread them out. If they're under trees, a single burst can take out multiple vehicles when the limbs convert ordinary HE into poor man's VT. M10s are open topped, and there is presently no modeling of either field expedient or unit level armored roofs. I've taken this sort of multiple casualty in CMx1 for sure and probably in the CMBN Demo as well. Doctrinally speaking, M10s are supposed to be well separated, precisely to avoid such calamities, but sometimes you have to take the only usable firing position, and if it's small, deal with the consequences. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 The ricochet mechanic is a bit broken in CMx2 in my opinion. I remember in CMA a 115mm sabot bounced from a T-62 and penetrated another one some distance away, knocking it out. You'd think a sabot round would be shattered not to mention it wouldn't approach the last plate at an optimal penetration angle... Also this stuff about WW2 era AP rounds going through a tank front to back through the engine block and still retaining their shape, energy and angle is a bit wild. Would love to see it fixed in 2.0! Otherwise the ricochet are really cool, but AP ammunition staying penetrative forever is a bit meh. Very true Though it is not realistic as it is now, it sure has stopped that bullcrap that was going on in CMx1 where players would stack armor up one behind another and another because they could shoot through each other and all have the same line of sight without any penalty, go ahead and try it now. I LOVE SEEING A ROUND KILL MULTIBLE UNITS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LOCATED IN A GOOD SPREAD FORMATION, which would you prefer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 ... that bullcrap that was going on in CMx1 where players would stack armor up one behind another and another because they could shoot through each other and all have the same line of sight without any penalty, .... Seriously ??!!! People did this ?? Man, I'm not nearly gamey enough. I never even thought of that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Seriously ??!!! People did this ?? Man, I'm not nearly gamey enough. I never even thought of that. "If you aren't cheating, you aren't trying hard enough." —Dr. Amber Volakis Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Seriously ??!!! People did this ?? Man, I'm not nearly gamey enough. I never even thought of that. It was called a "POS stack", named after the guy who popularized it (Poor Old Spike). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDork Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 There's a person I haven't thought about in years. Yep, POS loved to pull off the gamey tank stack almost as much as he loved going on and on about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 That's actually quite depressing to think about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatmasta Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I just made a test with Tiger I and 10 M3A1's with quite weird result. I stacked the M3's side by side and positioned the Tiger for a flank shot about 300m's. The first round penetrated 3 first M3's and 4th got hit to wheels, then 5th didn't hit at all, 6 and 7 where again hit to the wheels, 8 and 9 were missed completely and then again penetrated the 10th. Some of the M3's were destroyed and some not. The 2nd shot took out the rest of them. So the flight path of the 88mm round in the first shot is pretty much impossible so definitely some tweaking will be needed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiaoRedux Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Georgie, That seems extremely dubious to me, in terms of a real world outcome. I seem to remember a thread somewhere that suggested that one could restore one's faith in reality in this situation by imagining the shell was a dud. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I was bored and ran a few tests where a Jagdpanther was poking some holes in Churchill IVs with it's mighty phallic cannon. I was shooting perpendicular to the side at 150 meters with 9 Churchies lined neatly. Not one round in the few tests I ran penetrated more than 1 tank. This seems realistic to me. Running some other tests, I had a really funny turn. A Jagdpanther was shooting at a nearby tank obscured in smoke and missed twice, both shots flying some 500 meters into the distance and resulted in two fiery balls of flames and bits. I had no LOS to this dip in the ground but after the battle there were two smoking Shermans to be found. Also, Focke-Wulfs are awesome, what are they dropping, looks like JDAMs from CMSF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Georgie, That seems extremely dubious to me, in terms of a real world outcome. The default AP round for a Tiger 1 against Allied armor in the West would be PzGR 39, which is an AP shell which is both capped and ballistic capped. There is more than enough armor on an M10 to fuze the projectile when passing through the first one, never mind the others, but to get the kind of outcome you got, I think we'd first have to posit outright fuze failure. Even if the fuse was triggered and the burst charge detonated, the shell would not turn into cloud of splinters. Just it's rear part would be fragmented, the whole massive front part - probably more than half of shell mass - would just continue on it's path, retaining still tremendous penetration potential, at least for several meters. After more than several meters or after penetrating second obstacle (getting out of the tank), it would most porbably start tumbling and it could hit next targets flying side-on or even backwards. But STILL retaining some penetration potential against light targets like halftrucks. It's still several kilos of hard stel flying several hundredfs meters per second. The game overmodels the shell's after-penetration potential, probably the shell after penetrating loses only the amount of energy it spend on penetrating first obstacle and retains the rest. Instead, it should get additional penalty and have it's remaining penetration/energy decreased by some smart formula that would account for loss of mass after burster detonation and for loss of stability (tumbling) after first obstacle, depending on the obstacle's armor rating and randomised a bit. Game should also model additional energy loses if the shell hits engine, transmission, gun cradle and other things like that, while penetrating a vehicle. Tanks are not ampty boxes of steel. Not sure if the penetration of the second armor plate - getting from inside out - is currently modelled. One could check it, trying to penetrate trough, from a rear, a vehicle with very thin rear armor and very thick front armor . Multiple penetrations ARE possible and realistic. The shell, even after detonation, doesn't desintegrate completly. Multiple penetrations in CMBN are just too optimistic, but not entirely wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Amizaur, I understand what you're saying, but neither would this now penetration deformed mass continue on the same trajectory unchanged. Not only would it slow down, and rapidly at that, but it would likely take some new path, based on what it hit and the angle at which it did so. That's why I find these laser drill type multiple penetration reports so hard to take. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.