GJR144 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I always wondered why the in-game KT looks and feels plump while in reality and on film it looks beautiful. It seems to be the distorted proportions ("too thick?") due to the too low skirts. Excellent observation. It's always about the proportions. With these changes any potential mistakes on the turret could become more obvious, too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 What about the glacis slope angle? Is that correct in-game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted October 23, 2013 Author Share Posted October 23, 2013 measured by ruler in photoshop @ 42.5 deg. based on a screenie tho 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Jentz lists the glacis as being 150mm at 50 degrees. (Measured from vertical) The lower front plate, the nose plate, is 100mm, also at 50 degrees from vertical. The "wedge", where the glacis meets the lower nose plate, should measure 80 degrees from one armor surface, through the interior, to the other armor surface. I think the in-game model is too blunt. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Please... nobody waste any more time on trying to measure the proportions within the game and compare them to anything outside of it. Including textbooks, but especially photos. It's utterly useless at best, "harmful" at worst. Good intentions there may be, but this isn't going to help us any. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karabekian Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Regarding the amount of ammunition, the total would be 48(+/-2?) for the hull as well as 22(+/-2?) for the turret racks. However, storing ammunition in the turret rack was considered dangerous and in some it was discontinued altogether. I do not know if the above numbers are for the "Porsche" or the "Serien turm/production turret". If for the Porsche, then the additional (more than 80) might be for the production turret. However, adding even more ammunition in the already considered dangerous turret rack in the production turret even if the additional space made it possible might not have been common. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 We've been double checking our sources and it seems that Jenz, for all his awesomeness, has really screwed things up. His various books show different counts or no counts at all. Since Jenz is the most commonly cited source for ammo counts this explains why the counts are so inconsistent in other sources. From what it seems the production turret (Henschel) had 22 rounds in the turret, the Porsche 16. For both the hull stored 48. This means a total of 70 rounds for the Henschel, 64 for the Porsche. If what Karabekian says is true about the rounds in the turret being moved to the floor, for safety or ergonomic reasons, then the count would not be increased by 16. My guess is the curved nature of the Porsche turret caused problems for ammo stowage. The Henschel turret, on the other hand, is conventional flat surfaces and I don't understand how the Germans could screw up (and not fix) stowage racks. So I do not believe that there was an ammo stowage problem with the Henschel turret that would have crews putting the rounds on the floor. Based on this information I'm prepared to go under the assumption that the Porsche turret had stowage problems for it's 16 rounds. Crews then put them on the floor. Since the Porsche versions saw very little service before they were all knocked out, and the Henschel design fixed the problem, it didn't get the attention of researchers (unlike other well known German vehicle design flaws). Jenz made incomplete and inconsistent documentation of the rounds and that's caused a great deal of confusion. Currently I'm thinking we should have the ammo counts be: King Tiger (P) = 64 King Tiger (H) = 70 These numbers fit the agreed to facts of stowage capacity and avoids the probable double counting that Jenz introduced, as well as some of the other inconsistent counts. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidFields Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 I actually like the paint job of the CM2 King Tiger better than the RL one. And closer to what I used to do on my 1/35 models--the later ones, because one really needed a fine spray paint tool to get the best looks. And James Crowley, I guess we need to look for the partridge where there are two trees next to one another, and not in the pear trees. [MickeyD--you all do great stuff.] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted October 26, 2013 Share Posted October 26, 2013 Steve, According to alecsandros in this this post (July 11, 2011 9:31 p.m.) I found for the King Tiger Armor Strength thread, in August 1944 no less than three KTs were lost as a result of T-34/85 penetrations of their turrets. After that, it was hull storage only: 68 rounds. Makes sense to me. Sadly, he doesn't give a source, but his research in the initial post is impressive. http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3722 Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted December 8, 2013 Author Share Posted December 8, 2013 After a nervous break down.... I thought, at least now it looks good, authenticity aside?! (yep some hex editing was done on the 3d model to re-name 2 of the hatches...) And... at least.. like Vanir said the Sherman 76 can no longer penetrate the turret front anymore, as it should have been?!!... And... the hull and turret no longer has appalling low turn rates anymore... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 And... at least.. like Vanir said the Sherman 76 can no longer penetrate the turret front anymore, as it should have been?!!... I said that? I'm not even aware of that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted December 8, 2013 Author Share Posted December 8, 2013 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1469597&postcount=28 and IIRC that was not the first time. I did do my digging homework around here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 It must be a language barrier thing. I thought you were saying that the Tiger cannot be penetrated through the front turret anymore. In the post you quote I'm kind-of saying the opposite of that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex1 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 But still it is a lot rougher than most models in-game. Just had a Pz IV next to it in a scenario. The KT does look out of place. Lower quality wheels, tracks as well as many of the smaller details. I agree. When I saw the trailer for market garden I actually just figured that the polygon limit applied to such a huge model had made it a little simpler and uglier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Steve, From what I can tell, part of the problem with the King Tiger issues is that the camo jobs and lighting radically distort the way the two tanks look relative to each other. This tends to draw the viewer's eyes away from the desired item and into a bunch of visual signal "noise." What I can say, though, is that the Saumur tank has very pronounced and tall track skirt mounting flanges extending some 35-40% up the side of the King Tiger, whereas the game version appears to have !0% or so. This alone would suffice to trigger the "there's something off about this model" alarm among those who know the King Tiger and its proportions. May I therefore suggest that this mounting flange issue be looked into as a potential first order fix to the perceived King Tiger model problem? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted December 10, 2013 Author Share Posted December 10, 2013 It probably is a budget issue, but seeing as most other vehicles in game are better presented visual wise, and KT being a quite well-known AFV among the military enthusiasts circle I'm not exactly sure why. I can only hope that it gets updated. 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.