Dr. Brian Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Are the damages we see on the screen accurate? For example, when I click on a AFV that has been hit, it says hull penetration, etc. If Fog Of War is what the game is after, knowing if an enemy AFV is knocked out and how it was knocked out, is not always true. On that twist, I saw a message that said internal armor flaking. What the heck does that mean with respect to the functionality of the AFV? Is it more susceptible? What effect on game play? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Flaking or spalling is what can happen when a round fails to penetrate, but delivers enough energy for the opposite side of the armour (inside the vehicle) to disintegrate. A layer of the armour will split, disintegrate into a multitude of sharp little metal fragments that travel through the vehicle at very high speed, cutting the crew and soft parts to bits. If you are lucky the vehicle will still function once you have scraped out the remains of the crew. We have seen an armour plate in Bovington that had that happening to it. As for the rest, a much more detailed end of game (note, not end of battle in ops) screen would be nice. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted October 23, 2000 Author Share Posted October 23, 2000 Andreas, thanks for the description on flaking. However, after it happened, my AFV still continued to function normally. That's why I asked, what effect does it have on game play? Anyone have thoughts on/know this? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Flaking will sometimes knock out crew members. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: On that twist, I saw a message that said internal armor flaking. What the heck does that mean with respect to the functionality of the AFV? Is it more susceptible? What effect on game play? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now THAT would be ground breaking realism! Suppose an AFV takes a frontal upper hull hit and the result is "internal armor flaking" the VERY next round from any weapon to strike that frontal upper hull aspect SHOULD be a catastrophic penetration. Just about any round at any range. I think that maybe too much to ask from CMBO but a really nice suggestion for CM2 ! Virtually any hit on a surface that has previously had the result of "internal armor flaking" on it could be now modeled weaker and lead to any easy penetration by just about any round from any tank's main weapon. Now that would be unparralled realism! Its always good to AIM high -tom w (Charles can now summon the firing squad, has he and Steve, have proabably had about enough of my crazy suggestions ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 Tom - I don't think that this would in fact be the case. At the Bovington Tank Museum, they have on display a couple of chunks of armor plate which have been used for penetration tests. These plates were maybe 3'x3', and had been shot with something like 20-30 shells each. Some of the shells had not penetrated, some of the shells had gone clean through, some of the shells had partially penetrated and were still stuck in the plate. Some of the shells which had not penetrated had caused flaking. However, even after being penetrated by up to 30 shells in such a small area, the plate had retained its overall strength. That is to say, there didn't seem to be any indication that the plate was any weaker overall on the 30th shot than it was on the 1st. This would lead me to believe that armor flaking would not lead to a significant weakening of a tank's armor, unless by some incredibly poor luck, it happened to be struck twice in the exact same spot. I imagine the probibilities against that happening are astronomical, however. This is, of course, a completely anecdotal and unscientific answer, and if anyone has some hard data on this, I'd enjoy seeing it. Cheers ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Tom - I don't think that this would in fact be the case. At the Bovington Tank Museum, they have on display a couple of chunks of armor plate which have been used for penetration tests. These plates were maybe 3'x3', and had been shot with something like 20-30 shells each. Some of the shells had not penetrated, some of the shells had gone clean through, some of the shells had partially penetrated and were still stuck in the plate. Some of the shells which had not penetrated had caused flaking. However, even after being penetrated by up to 30 shells in such a small area, the plate had retained its overall strength. That is to say, there didn't seem to be any indication that the plate was any weaker overall on the 30th shot than it was on the 1st. This would lead me to believe that armor flaking would not lead to a significant weakening of a tank's armor, unless by some incredibly poor luck, it happened to be struck twice in the exact same spot. I imagine the probibilities against that happening are astronomical, however. This is, of course, a completely anecdotal and unscientific answer, and if anyone has some hard data on this, I'd enjoy seeing it. Cheers <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK Thanks for the insight. I had NO idea, so I should most definately withdraw my previous suggestion. Sorry for the wasted time and bandwidth and thanks to Chupacabra for the clarification. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted October 23, 2000 Author Share Posted October 23, 2000 So still, the question remains, does the game model subsequent shots weaking armor? It's not in the manual (which is very vauge). ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: So still, the question remains, does the game model subsequent shots weaking armor? It's not in the manual (which is very vauge). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think there is another question that needs answering first: Do subsequent shots weaken armour? I don't know. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: So still, the question remains, does the game model subsequent shots weaking armor? It's not in the manual (which is very vauge). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do not believe weakened armour from previous shot is modeled. If it was modeled we would have been debating it and arguring about HOW it was modeled by now.... so I would say no it is not modeled IMO. (that I know of) -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I think there is another question that needs answering first: Do subsequent shots weaken armour? I don't know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I seem to remember this being discussed a bit in either the "Long 88mm Lacking Punch?" or the "Is Artillery too effective vs. tanks?" threads. I believe that repeated shots can weaken armor, especially the face-hardened type that was used in many German tanks. The degree of weakening depends on what's hitting it, of course. Either way, it's not modeled in CM. ------------------ Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveman Posted October 23, 2000 Share Posted October 23, 2000 I suppose that flaking would deteriorate armor, but remember that one hit isn't likely to have the entire armor facing flaking off. I'm assuming it's more like a radius around the point of impact that flakes... so a subsequent hit in the general area of the shot that caused flaking might have a better chance of penetration, but elsewhere it wouldn't do a thing. ------------------ “Thus, the M4A3E8(76)W designation meant a tank with an official Mortality of 4 minutes, Actually 3 minutes, cost Extra, and had a 76% chance of going WHOOSH." - Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted October 24, 2000 Author Share Posted October 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: Either way, it's not modeled in CM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hopefully, the answer to my question will put this topic to rest. Okay, if it is not "modeled," why is it noted on the screen. More specifically, what is happening in GAME terms (as it is not in the manual). Has my ability to fire decreased? My ability to move? My ability to spot? By what percentages has it decreased, if any? The manual is lacking here, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: Hopefully, the answer to my question will put this topic to rest. Okay, if it is not "modeled," why is it noted on the screen. More specifically, what is happening in GAME terms (as it is not in the manual). Has my ability to fire decreased? My ability to move? My ability to spot? By what percentages has it decreased, if any? The manual is lacking here, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Doc I understand it models the odds or possibility of a crew casuality Internal Armour Flaking can lead to crew casulities (which you will see on your tank status screen) which lead to buttoned ONLY status for the tank for the rest of the game. I have seen internal armour flaking leave me with a AVF crew casuality. This can hurt a little, but you will at least know it happend. If you do not see a crew casuality on your AFV in question then the internal flaking is a hint that the enemy has found the range, has hit you and the luck might not be in your favour as the next round might just as easily penetrate, so get the HELL out of there. how's that? Comments anyone else? -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted October 24, 2000 Author Share Posted October 24, 2000 Thanks Tom… Guess I'm gonna have to click on each unit, and see it's crew status. I'd love to "get the hell" out of there, but the second round usually kills me. The armor duels really don't exist too much. Penetration is way severe, IMO. I haven't had experience in a real armor duel (thank God), but it seems a little too easy to kill and AFV. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 From what I have seen/read it is pretty easy to kill a tank. Armour duels rarely get beyond 1-3 shots each. By that time either someone has found their mark, or, one side's numerical/qualitiative abilities have outflanked them and another tank joins in. Even big battleship engagements rarely lasted more than a few salvo's (with some rare exceptions). Remembering reading/watching stuff on the Battle of Kursk, that both the Germans and Russians lost hundreds of tanks within a span of a few minutes-hours. They were all of good quality, and quantity was similar. The truth to the matter is, tank battles are short and deadly. This is the main reason why I would never want to be in the Armour Corps, or the Navy if a war were ever to erupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 24, 2000 Share Posted October 24, 2000 Why do the words "egg shells with hammers" keep coming to mind? CM Tank duals are short and deadly, but for the most part, (quibbling about, optics, accruacy and long range penetration Aside) its seems most folks here think the way the game is now, pretty much models the actual reality of this kind of tank combat after D-Day in WW II. I personally love to see things explode! Its alot more fun when they are enemy AFV's but I do still enjoy seeing ANYTHING blow up in the game. (No blood and guts here remember so we have to settle for watching things get blown up!) Egg shells with hammers... That about sums up tank combat I don't know who said it but it sure is true when they take one hit and brew up! -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts