Tungsten rounds - thats about it!

[KiwiJoe]

Here's the deal:

My Sherman Jumbo 76 is duking it out with a Panther at 520m, which is hull down to me... both are vets. For 1 and a half turns they trade shots with both getting several hits and no damage. On the 3rd turn of this duel I check los and I have a 74% chance to hit. And yet my boys soend the next round firing off AP rounds. What the hell? The 76mm AP round can penetrate 112mm at 500,... there is no way I can penetrate 110mm/10 at 520m. Why don't they fire the (T) rounds? Armour is flaking, shells are bouncing off, its only a matter of time before 1 penetrates or gets a gun hit!!!!!!!!!!!!! This needs to be fixed. The allies seems to only fire (T) rounds at tigers. Yet the tiger 1 has less front armour than the panther. Here I'am wasting 20 odd AP rounds for nothing... very frustrating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right I'm off to clean the spittle off my monitor from all the swearing and yelling ive been doing at my lame tank crew

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

I had same problem with a StugH-42. It had 3 hollow case rds, It was plugging away at a Jumbo at POINT Blank with HE, not ever getting a penetration. (the Jumbo had it's gun shot off) It did not want to use hollow charges at all. I was a little bothered.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Johnson-<THC>- (edited 08-17-2000).]

[Ben Galanti]

I agree... It seems that tanks are a little too conservative about using their 'specials'.

I know in Real Life crews didn't want to use them becuase they didn't get many, but if I had a Panther dinging rounds off my turret, I suspect I might use one

[Jeff Heidman]

I know it is heresy to suggest giving the player more control, but I am all for being able to order your tank to specifically engage a target with tungsten/HEAT or whatever.

Especially the allies. They are given WAY too much HVAP/APDS to begin with, and they usually die with several rounds left.

In general, vehicles carry too much ammo. That is partly the fault of the scenario deisgners. They all seem to assume that all the vehicles just got back from the ammo dump.

Jeff

[Peter S]

I've played Quick Battles where my tanks started out with less than optimal ammo loadouts. Other than lowering the numbers of HVAP/APDS and other special AP rounds available in any given tank, I would prefer that BTS leave the ammo levels alone.

Perhaps BTS should add an option to the Quick Battle generator that allows you to adjust either side's starting ammunition levels (i.e. Low, Average, Fully Supplied and Random).

[KiwiJoe]

I agree with u about the control Jeff. When u target a tank and have (T) rounds it should come up with a drop down box ( like the 1 that asks whether u want to use the main gun when targeting infantry). This box should have AP and Tungsten in it so you can tell the bastards to use some of those special rounds... they aint made of gold boys.

[Guest Germanboy]

I think both KiwiJoe's and PeterS's ideas are well worth looking at. I would like to have more options for Quick Battles, anything to make them even more interesting. And in a PBEM against Berli (he be damned) he brought a King Tiger and a StuH42. I had 6pdr AT guns (don't laugh). One had one Tungsten round and spent it on the first shot on the StuH42, a flank shot on top of that. And missed. I believe the guys (veteran gunners, BTW) were a bit overanxious. The KT had been identified at this point, and I would have loved to have the T-round in reserve.

------------------

Andreas

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

I think both KiwiJoe's and PeterS's ideas are well worth looking at.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do too. As for tungsten rounds, I'd like to see some player input into that decision. After all, if you decide to use them and you use them up, and something else comes along that you would have liked to have them for, that's just the fortunes of war, isn't it? But to get blown up because you were afraid to use them is just ****in' dumb.

On the subject of more options during the creation of QBs or user-designeds, I would also be happy to have one where squads, etc. begin with less than the maximum number of troops to represent attrition from previous actions.

Michael

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

On the subject of more options during the creation of QBs or user-designeds, I would also be happy to have one where squads, etc. begin with less than the maximum number of troops to represent attrition from previous actions.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I brought that up about half a year ago after reading 'Roll me over' and I am sure other's did earlier than that. Steve replied and explained why, but I have forgotten. This would be nice to have. Currently if I design a scenario and want to represent attrition, I just take a squad off the platoon. Not quite the same, but it works. Something for CM2 for sure, but I can live with the way it currently is. Would be nice though.

------------------

Andreas

[Jeff Heidman]

I think that if there is a justification for the user to decide whether or not to use the main gun when engagin infantry, there is certainly justification for the user deciding what kind of ammo to use when explicitly targetting enemies.

Of course, this is CM, so at any time your crews could tell you to shove it when they think your orders are stupid.

The problem with leaving everything up to the tac AI is that it is brain dead whenever circumstances get even mildly unusual.

Jeff

[Daveman]

I like the drop down command for special rounds... but in keeping with the "lack of direct control" flavor to the game it could just increase the likelyhood of a unit using specials, rather than a direct command.

It's a shame the AI doesn't recognize the need so well in the first place, but it's doing enough already (and very well too).

------------------

"You know our standing orders. Out of ammo become a bunker, out of commission become a pillbox, out of time... become heroes." - The Beast

[Guest aaronb]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

[bAs for tungsten rounds, I'd like to see some player input into that decision. After all, if you decide to use them and you use them up, and something else comes along that you would have liked to have them for, that's just the fortunes of war, isn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The current tungsten usage may be low, but giving the player control gives you a huge advantage over the AI: if you've played a scenario once, or are counting points in a QB, you know exactly how much armour you will be/are facing. OTOH, your electronic warriors only know that they might have to fight for hours before resupply. Let them decide.

Remember M1TP2? Where the AI used up all the STAFF on BMP's, leaving you dry for the T-80's? That was worse.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Also keep in mind that user control over the use of special rounds does NOT help you unless you can target the unit yourself. In other words, if you are happily driving down a road and 22 seconds into the turn a big threat comes up, there is absolutely NO way you can manually tell the unit to fire a special round at the threat. So putting in such a feature is a niggly thing that won't benefit you most of the time anyway. So it isn't going to happen.

As for why units may, or may not be, using their special rounds when you think they should... I can't say. I'll pass it on to Charles, but keep in mind that you are only complaining about when they don't use them. I have seen them used often, so clearly the charge that the TacAI is incapable of making the right decision all the time is unfounded.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

Here's the deal:

My Sherman Jumbo 76 is duking it out with a Panther at 520m, which is hull down to me... both are vets. For 1 and a half turns they trade shots with both getting several hits and no damage. On the 3rd turn of this duel I check los and I have a 74% chance to hit. And yet my boys soend the next round firing off AP rounds. What the hell? The 76mm AP round can penetrate 112mm at 500,...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

76mm APCBC in the game; can defeat the Panther's front turret at over 500ms so the TAC AI may not be seeing a reason to use APCR-T.

I have noticed the 76mm tanks & TD's will fire APCR-T more often at a Tiger 1 then any other target, but I have also seen them use it vs PzKpfw IVs, Stugs & Hetzers even though its overkill , it seems to be a very random procress when the AI uses APCR-T.

Regards, John Waters

----------

"Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!!"

[KiwiJoe]

Well I bounced 7 rounds of the front turrent I think it was and finally got a gun hit which seems to have declawed that Panther. Not the way I would have liked the battle to have gone as I wasted A LOT of AP rounds. Surely the TAC AI could be programed to switch to (T) rounds after 2-3 shots have had no effect and the situation hasnt changed. It just doesnt seem right to me.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

Well I bounced 7 rounds of the front turrent I think it was and finally got a gun hit which seems to have declawed that Panther. Not the way I would have liked the battle to have gone as I wasted A LOT of AP rounds. Surely the TAC AI could be programed to switch to (T) rounds after 2-3 shots have had no effect and the situation hasnt changed. It just doesnt seem right to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand Joe, and would add this, even if the AI had switched to APCR-T it would not have guarenteed a kill at that range so your Jumbo may have used up all its APCR-T with the same bounce results. Your best hope was a front turret penetration or a gun hit, and you got the gun hit .

Regards, John Waters

----------

"Go for the eyes Boo, go for the eyes!!"

[Guest Big Time Software]

John brings up a good point. The TacAI is programmed to NOT waste a special round when an AP one has just about the same practical chance of doing damage as the special. If the TacAI thinks that using a special round will yield no critical increase in the chance of knocking out the enemy vehicle in question, it will *NOT* waste it in a futile effort. It will, instead, keep firing AP/HE until it has either damaged the target or forced it to withdraw.

One example that is clear in my head is one of the times I was testing out the Valley of Trouble scenario I made. The 150 IG saw a Sherman. The very FIRST shot it fired was its one hollow charge round. Got lucky and scored a direct hit too The reasoning was clear and logical. An HE round wasn't likely to get a kill, but the hollow charge was a sure bet.

What I suggest is that people pay close attention to the details in situations where a special round isn't used. I think if you really examine the situation you will see that it is explainable, and in fact desirable, for the most part.

Steve

[KiwiJoe]

AP at 500m - 112mm penetration

T at 500m - 206mm penetration

Panther VA hull down facing forward at 520m, so only area to hit is front turrent - 110/10 85% quality = 95.5/10 which is approx 127mm/0.

74% chance to hit.

The AP rounds have NO chance to kill in this situation. They would have to penetrate 15 extra mm than they are capable of. I know there is a varable in the penetartion formula but I doubt it would allow for that much extra power. The only chance with AP is to hit the shot trap, weak spot or get a gun hit.

On the other hand the Tungsten rounds will penetrate 206mm and thus would DIFFINITLY penetrate at this range.

There is no reason I can figure why they wouldnt shoot tungsten rounds here.

[Mark IV]

I had a complaint along these lines, too, but I now believe mine to have been unjustified.

My 150 IG was behind a treeline and a Sherman came around the corner (roughly 100m). BANG direct hit on the turret, but with an HE. The turret swung around and you know the rest, bye-bye IG.

I squawked that the gun had had 3 © charges and that they should have used them. But, they didn't know a Sherman was going to appear, so they fired what they had in the tube. Better to die trying than be caught in the middle of a load swap-out.

No reference to the tungsten debate.

[Juardis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

What I suggest is that people pay close attention to the details in situations where a special round isn't used. I think if you really examine the situation you will see that it is explainable, and in fact desirable, for the most part.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not trying to be a smartass here Steve, but if we examine the situation and find it undesirable, do you want to hear about it? I've been content to swear at my dumb ass loader, but if you prefer to hear about it....

Seriously, I have yet to see one of my tanks fire a special round, and I've been specifically looking for it. I just assume I have not come across a situation where the AI thinks it's critical (but I sure as hell do). And I think having the ability to manually load that special round would happen more than you think.

But, you're the man so I'll play by your rules since they've held up incredibly well so far. Your explanation above does help considerably and for that I thank you immensely.

back to the war...

------------------

Jeff Abbott

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

You quite right BTS, most of the time the TacAI does a pretty good job picking ammo to use. But do gunners really fire what they have loaded in the tube? From what I think I've been seeing is gunners can magicaly switch targets after unloading on infantry, and fire off an AP round at a tank.

[KiwiJoe]

Ok So after 2 1/2 rounds of AP fire and a lucky gun hit on the PAnther the forth turn started. Low and behold by boys fire off a tungsten round 1st up , penetrate and kill the crippled Panther. I wounder why having its gun damaged made my boys use the (T) round? Or after 20 odd AP rounds they finally decided enough was enough? The chance to hit was the same threw the 3rd and forth rounds... 74%.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe:

AP at 500m - 112mm penetration

T at 500m - 206mm penetration

Panther VA hull down facing forward at 520m, so only area to hit is front turrent - 110/10 85% quality = 95.5/10 which is approx 127mm/0.

74% chance to hit.

The AP rounds have NO chance to kill in this situation. They would have to penetrate 15 extra mm than they are capable of. I know there is a varable in the penetartion formula but I doubt it would allow for that much extra power. The only chance with AP is to hit the shot trap, weak spot or get a gun hit.

On the other hand the Tungsten rounds will penetrate 206mm and thus would DIFFINITLY penetrate at this range.

There is no reason I can figure why they wouldnt shoot tungsten rounds here.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats at 0^ right Joe?. I can't speak for CM models; the penetration formula was from the 1950 British PENETRATION OF ARMOUR PLATE report.

All I can say is the majority of Panthers I lose are from front turret penetrations at 'weak point' which I'm assuming is modeling the small flat surfaces of the turret face.

While the majority of my Sherman 76 kills vs Panthers has been again front turret penetrations at 'weak point' and gun damage, but always useing APCBC and always from 700ms on down.

My 3 Sherman 76's nailed 5 Panther Ausf G usualy on the 2nd shot, with 4 FTWP kills in a row, and 1 side turret pen, not one mantlet hit, and the TF on a Panther is a very small area below the mantlet, on the left and right turret corners.

So 76mm APCBC can deal with the Panther TF & I think the TAC AI is useing that, as in it knows the APCBC round can kill the Panther at 520ms and thats why no HVAP is used.

As to the Pen data historicly the Panther was immune to M79 APCBC even at 0ms on the glacis and 100ms on the mantlet, in live fire tests conducted in August 1944 in France by the US Army vs Panther A & G's.

76mm M79 APCBC& M93 APCR-T both failed vs the Panther glacis. M93 penetrated the glacis 1 shot out of 3 at 300yrds, with a slightly better % vs the mantlet.

Comparing the paper performance of the M79 & M93 @ 500yrds @ 30^

M79 - 109mm

M93 -157mm

Seems like penetration should be no problem @ 500yrds vs an 80mm @55^ glacis and an 100mm mantlet yet, it didn't happen and thats what I meant by even at that range usage of APCR-T did not guarentee you a kill.

Regards, John Waters

---------

"Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!"

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-18-2000).]

[Ben Galanti]

John,

This isn't totally on topic, but I wanted to clear up a couple of things about some of the CM armour penetrations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All I can say is the majority of Panthers I lose are from front turret penetrations at 'weak point' which I'm assuming is modeling the small flat surfaces of the turret face.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 'weak point' hits aren't anything specific when they occur. After CM calculates a hit, a small percentage of the time it randomly decides it was at a weak spot (weld, flat spot, Vision slit, it counts as any of them). Charles described best in this thread (which also has one of those cool penetration diagrams, I hope they give us those soon... but I digress):

www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000545.html

He says:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Weak armor locations, aka "critical hits". These are those few spots on any armored vehicle where the effective armor strength is below normal. Typically they are around any place in which there's a "hole" (even if plugged up) in the armor - a structural weakness - like a coaxial MG mount, or a vision port/block, etc. Any hit on a tank has (roughly) a 1% chance of hitting one of these weak spots, and the armor strength is reduced by as much as 50%.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Later in the thread, Chalres says that the reduction is somewhere between 30 and 50% for a weak point hit. The armor thickness is reduce by this amount to represent all of those bits that cause armor not to act as thick as it is.

Secondly, you said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My 3 Sherman 76's nailed 5 Panther Ausf G usualy on the 2nd shot, with 4 FTWP kills in a row, and 1 side turret pen, not one mantlet hit, and the TF on a Panther is a very small area below the mantlet, on the left and right turret corners.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now 4 weak spot hits in a row is just really bad luck, since it's random. But the real thing I wanted to mention (since this has also come up in the 'Interesting facts about the Tiger' thread) is that I don't think CM models Mantlet hits specifically. The value you see for front turret in the info box is all the armor that is there. I always assumed that number was larger then the historical 'front turret' number to account for mantlets, but I'm not much of a tank grog, so I never bothered to check. I don't recall ever seeing a mantlet hit, so I suspect that all of CMs turret fronts are modeled simply as a slab of steel at that listed angle and thickness. I could be mistaken on this, but Idon't ever recall seeing mention here that mantlets are specifically modeled. I suspect the difficulty is that in real life, the thickness varied from point to point on the front of the turret. This is supposed to be accounted for with the 'weak spots' though.

I'm sorry if you knew all of this already, just from that post it looked like you might have a couple of misconceptions.

[This message has been edited by Ben Galanti (edited 08-18-2000).]

[Bastables]

The ratings for the turret front on the Panther and the Tigger represent the mantle thickness so Johns conclusions that the weak or critical hits on a Panther are there to represent the small 10cm armour triangles to the right and left of the mantle as well as co-ax and periscope penetrations is to my mind quite correct. The weak points as I understand it are taken into account and treated as % within CM and these very from veh to veh depending on Charles understanding and knoweldge of weak points on the real veh.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 08-18-2000).]