What does "Gun Damaged" really mean?

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Someone posted earlier and stated that Gun Damaged hits are hits that do not penetrate the armor. Therefore, how can internal components be damaged to leave the gun inoperable? They can't. Thus a gun damaged hit actually hits the gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually the point being made was that ANY hit to the mantlet or turret has a lot of kinetic energy that has to go someplace, even if the round doesn't penetrate. Therefore the "relatively" delicate optics and so forth could be damaged even with a non-penetrative hit. At least that's my read on what was being said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Most of you have been saying that most of our arguments have been a "feeling" or "I believe", well then, why is the hit modeling done they way it is? Where is the data that backs up all these gun hits?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know but I'm willing to bet that BTS has it What others were saying is that THEY didn't have the data. Based on what I've seen of BTS I would be shocked if they didn't have hard core data to back up the frequency of gun damage.

Joe

[CavScout]

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

Someone posted earlier and stated that Gun Damaged hits are hits that do not penetrate the armor. Therefore, how can internal components be damaged to leave the gun inoperable? They can't. Thus a gun damaged hit actually hits the gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's like asking how your internal organs were damaged when I smacked you with the baseball bat because the bat never penetrated your skin. Rounds do not need to penetrate to effect damage. Hell, modern rounds like the British HESH (I think it is spelled this way) are made NOT to penetrate but to induce spalling on the inside of a vehicle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

What I am saying is that the gun is hit WAY too often and even if it is nicked, glanced, or even brushed with a bounced shell it gets damaged. I find this unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on what?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Most of you have been saying that most of our arguments have been a "feeling" or "I believe", well then, why is the hit modeling done they way it is? Where is the data that backs up all these gun hits?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Question is should they prove they are right or you [and others] prove them wrong?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

So far I have seen NOTHING from anybody to refute anything argument put forth on this discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only because, so far, there has been nothing to "refute".

Cav

[Bastables]

Extract from a report by I.Abeteilung/Panzer Regiment 2. (Panther) 13 Pz division 20 October 1943 ‘The telescopes of the T.Z.F. 12 gun sight break apart as result of gun hits on the mantlet. The expenditure of protective lenses for the T.F.Z.12 is very high.’ Also ‘the periscopes in the commanders cupola are un-usable after the turret is hit. Additional replacement periscopes are necessary.’

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

From one of the Jeffs

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

[Reaper]

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

Only because, so far, there has been nothing to "refute".

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey,

Well, I for one don't disagree, but if you'd look at all the posts I have asked if we could at least be shown what data sources were used for this calculation. I don't assert that Steve and Charles have anything to refute, I just want to know what the source was. As has been said before, gun hits certainly happened, but did they happen as often as the simulation would have us believe? Based on my reading I would suggest no, since no meaningful statistics of this nature are ever mentioned (that I have seen).

If some statistically meaningful data backs up the rate of gun damage results that we currently see, great. One photo of a blown barrel here, and a diary entry there are not statistically meaningful. If every abteilung reported large numbers of tanks lost to gun damaging hits in most engagements, well then, there is a case.

Would BTS care to comment again at this point?

Reaper

[CavScout]

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

Well, I for one don't disagree, but if you'd look at all the posts I have asked if we could at least be shown what data sources were used for this calculation. I don't assert that Steve and Charles have anything to refute, I just want to know what the source was. As has been said before, gun hits certainly happened, but did they happen as often as the simulation would have us believe? Based on my reading I would suggest no, since no meaningful statistics of this nature are ever mentioned (that I have seen).

If some statistically meaningful data backs up the rate of gun damage results that we currently see, great. One photo of a blown barrel here, and a diary entry there are not statistically meaningful. If every abteilung reported large numbers of tanks lost to gun damaging hits in most engagements, well then, there is a case.

Would BTS care to comment again at this point?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am all for seeing why they did what they did. Unfortuantly it seems that it has turned into a "I can't prove my point of view so I am going to make you prove yours" debate.

I also feel this has little to with "realism" as much as it has to do with some folks wanting to have more powerful armor. Everyone wants to park a Panther and smash a dozen Shermans. They get pissed when when the Panther gets a "gun damage" hit and is effectivly out of the game. IMO, people have been a little lose with the armor.

Cav

[Reaper]

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

I also feel this has little to with "realism" as much as it has to do with some folks wanting to have more powerful armor. Everyone wants to park a Panther and smash a dozen Shermans. They get pissed when when the Panther gets a "gun damage" hit and is effectivly out of the game. IMO, people have been a little lose with the armor.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey,

Perhaps for some. I am actually interested in the realism factor as well. I have enough threats on the battlefield to contend with without a possibly erroneous percentage chance of losing my armament. Personally, I am now very curious about the factual data at this point. Bastables last post had a source from '43 regarding sights, but without a significant amount of corroborating evidence it is just an isolated incident. If these types of reports are littering war journals, then I'll happily shut up and treat my tanks with more kit gloves.

Reaper

[jshandorf]

Cav,

Give me a break. You actually are going to compare a person being hit with a baseball bat with a tank being hit by a shell? Get real...

These are the kind of analogies that are really pointless and only server to misguide.

HESH ammo??? Huh??? What are you talking about?? We are talking about WWII not modern tanks and ammunition. Bringing this up is utterly useless.

I for one would like the source material that supports all these guns hits.

Let me ask.. What makes you think that the current model is correct other than your feelings? You have none.

Heck, lets look at from a mathematical standpoint. Take the entire surface area that the mantlet takes up on a Panther. I would estimate it occupies probably around 10% of the surface are from a straight on perspective. Now that means on avergae that 1 out of every 12 hits or so will strike it. Now lets just guess at how many of those hits will actually cause any damage? Well, it won't be ALL of them and it won't be NONE. So, obviously it is in the middle. Hmmm.... Lets just hit it in the middle with 50%. That seem fair? OKay...

Want to geuss the number of gun hits that actually damaged the main gun now??? The answer is 4%. That's it.

Now do you think that is close to what you have seen in the game. Nope. I don't think so.

So, there.... I have made an argument that is NOT based off of "I feels" and "I believes". Now tell me why I should adjust my numbers and then we can crunch the formula again and come up with a new percentage.

Until then I stand by my claim that Gun Damage hits happen WAY too often.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-12-2000).]

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>jshandorf wrote:

I for one would like the source material that supports all these guns hits.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTS has done a ton of research for this game, it isn't perfect but you can be sure they haven't pulled things out of a hat, something you would like to believe. You think there is something 'off' with the gun damage? Instead of bestowing examples of superior logic upon us and demanding someone else do the work of research for you, why don't you dig up some data on this issue yourself to make your point?

[Reaper]

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

Instead of bestowing examples of superior logic upon us and demanding someone else do the work of research for you, why don't you dig up some data on this issue yourself to make your point?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm,

Why so hostile? Relax. I asked for the data, what is the big deal? I asked no one to do any research for me, I just want references. As I said, relax, you have nothing at stake here. No need to provoke in an otherwise civil discussion.

I realize this isn't directed at me, but I'd like to see this discussed, not screamed.

Reaper

[This message has been edited by Reaper (edited 09-12-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

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

Cav,

Give me a break. You actually are going to compare a person being hit with a baseball bat with a tank being hit by a shell? Get real...

These are the kind of analogies that are really pointless and only server to misguide.

HESH ammo??? Huh??? What are you talking about?? We are talking about WWII not modern tanks and ammunition. Bringing this up is utterly useless.

I for one would like the source material that supports all these guns hits.

Let me ask.. What makes you think that the current model is correct other than your feelings? You have none.

Heck, lets look at from a mathematical standpoint. Take the entire surface area that the mantlet takes up on a Panther. I would estimate it occupies probably around 10% of the surface are from a straight on perspective. Now that means on avergae that 1 out of every 12 hits or so will strike it. Now lets just guess at how many of those hits will actually cause any damage? Well, it won't be ALL of them and it won't be NONE. So, obviously it is in the middle. Hmmm.... Lets just hit it in the middle with 50%. That seem fair? OKay...

Want to geuss the number of gun hits that actually damaged the main gun now??? The answer is 4%. That's it.

Now do you think that is close to what you have seen in the game. Nope. I don't think so.

So, there.... I have made an argument that is NOT based off of "I feels" and "I believes". Now tell me why I should adjust my numbers and then we can crunch the formula again and come up with a new percentage.

Until then I stand by my claim that Gun Damage hits happen WAY too often.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-12-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While agree with Jeff that Gun Damage 'seems' overdone, I would like to make a couple of points.

OK, so the baseball bat is not an apt simile. How about getting shot with a .357 magnum while wearing a level II bulletproof vest? Sure, it might not penetrate, but it sure as heck can stop your heart if it hits in the middle of your chest.

I think using simplified statistics like this are counter-productive, since they don't take into account some very important points like point of aim. Generally, this will be near center mass to ensure the best chance for a hit. The gun is usually mounted close to center mass, increasing the chance that it will be hit. Your example also assumes a farily even spread of projectiles, while in reality it would be more like (examples only) 50% of shots within 1m of center, 35% 1-2m, 15% more than 3m. Your example also seems to assume only contact with the mantlet would produce a gun damage result. BTS and others have stated hits to the turret ring, traverse motors, etc. can cause this as well.

I would like to hear 'official' comment, too.

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[Guest tero]

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

From the version 1.04 readme file:

* Vehicles in hunt mode, whose guns are damaged, will stop movement and

consider evasive action.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. But for how long ? Indefinitely ? I have not been able to get them moving unless I give them a Reverse, Move or Fast Move command.

[JoePrivate]

This is from a thread a few weeks ago:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Vet.Tiger vs Vet.M4A3(76)

Tiger

Hitchance - 16%

255shots/73hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 4.15

avg. shots per kill - 5.21

1st shot hits - 14%

worst case for 1st hit - 11shots

5 or more shots for 1st hit - 38%

Sherman(76)

Hitchance - 18%

305shots/116hits

avg. shots 1st hit - 2.85

1st shot hits - 21%

worst case for 1st hit - 8shots

The Sherman(76) KO'd the Tiger twice with weak point penetrations and damaged it's gun once.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the Sherman scored one gun damage out of 116 hits on the Tiger. Does that seem too high?

[Guest tero]

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

Bastables last post had a source from '43 regarding sights, but without a significant amount of corroborating evidence it is just an isolated incident. If these types of reports are littering war journals, then I'll happily shut up and treat my tanks with more kit gloves.

Reaper

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. While the source says the expenditure of said spare parts was high there is nothing mentioned about vehicles being unserviceable or not combat worthy because of said parts being hit often.

The only instance of optics hit being the cause of a vehicle being KO'd (abandoned really) I can recall is a Finnish 37mm AT gun hitting the drivers visior of a KV-1 in 1941. The driver was injured or killed and the rest of the crew abandoned the vehicle. Based on that I would expect to get HUGE mobility kill figures due to the driver being hit. Never gotten or seen any though.

[Guest rune]

I have been researching this since it came up. While I am trying to get stats for the Americans and Germans, I managed to get some stats for the Russian tanks. Bare with me, as this will be a long post. An article from Author: George M Nipe Jr. started me on my quest. Here is a partial listing of his interesting article.

Prochorovka is one of the best-known of the many battles on the Eastern Front during World War II. It has been covered in articles, books and televised historical documentaries, but these accounts vary in accuracy; some are merely incomplete, while others border on fiction. In the generally accepted version of the battle, the three SS divisions attacked Prochorovka shoulder to shoulder, jammed into the terrain between the Psel and the railroad. A total of 500 to 700 German tanks, including dozens of Panzerkampfwagen Mark V Panther medium tanks with 75mm guns and Panzerkampfwagen Mark VI Tiger heavy tanks with deadly 88mm cannons, lumbered forward while hundreds of nimble Soviet T-34 medium tanks raced into the midst of the SS armor and threw the Germans into confusion. The Soviets closed with the panzers, negating the Tigers' 88mm guns, outmaneuvered the German armor and knocked out hundreds of German tanks. The Soviet tank force's audacious tactics resulted in a disastrous defeat for the Germans, and the disorganized SS divisions withdrew, leaving 400 destroyed tanks behind, including between 70 and 100 Tigers and many Panthers. Those losses smashed the SS divisions' fighting power, and as a result Hoth's Fourth Panzer Army had no chance to achieve even a partial victory in the south.

While it makes a dramatic story, nearly all of this battle scenario is essentially myth. Careful study of the daily tank strength reports and combat records of II SS Panzer Corps--available on microfilm at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.--provides information that forces a historical reappraisal of the battle. These records show, first of all, that Hausser's corps began with far fewer tanks than previously believed and, more important, that they suffered only moderate losses on July 12, 1943. As those reports were intended to allow the corps commander to assess the combat strength of his divisions, they can be considered reasonably accurate. Considering that information, it seems that the Germans may have been near a limited success on the southern flank of the salient.

The number of SS tanks actually involved in the battle has been variously reported as high as 700 by some authorities, while others have estimated between 300 to 600. Even before the Battle of Kursk began, however, the II SS Panzer Corps never had 500 tanks, much less 700. On July 4, the day before Operation Citadel was launched, Hausser's three divisions possessed a total of 327 tanks between them, plus a number of command tanks. By July 11, the II SS Panzer Corps had a total of 211 operational tanks--Totenkopf had 94 tanks, Leibstandarte had only 56 and Das Reich possessed just 61. Damaged tanks or tanks undergoing repairs are not listed. Only 15 Tiger tanks were still in action at Prochorovka, and there were no SS Panthers available. The battalions that were equipped with Panthers were still training in Germany in July 1943.

On July 13, the day after the Battle of Prochorovka, Fourth Panzer Army reports declared that the II SS Panzer Corps had 163 operational tanks, a net loss of only 48 tanks. Actual losses were somewhat heavier, the discrepancy due to the gain of repaired tanks returned to action. Closer study of the losses of each type of tank reveals that the corps lost about 70 tanks on July 12. In contrast, Soviet tank losses, long assumed to be moderate, were actually catastrophic. In 1984, a history of the Fifth Guards Tank Army written by Rotmistrov himself revealed that on July 13 the army lost 400 tanks to repairable damage. He gave no figure for tanks that were destroyed or not available for salvage. Evidence suggests that there were hundreds of additional Soviet tanks lost. Several German accounts mention that Hausser had to use chalk to mark and count the huge jumble of 93 knocked-out Soviet tanks in the Leibstandarte sector alone. Other Soviet sources say the tank strength of the army on July 13 was 150 to 200, a loss of about 650 tanks. Those losses brought a caustic rebuke from Josef Stalin. Subsequently, the depleted Fifth Guards Tank Army did not resume offensive action, and Rotmistrov ordered his remaining tanks to dig in among the infantry positions west of the town.

Armed with the report of 400 damaged but repairable tanks, I emailed various locations in Russia, and got the following information:

Of the 403 tanks reportedly damaged, apporximately 32-35 had gun damage as you defined it.

This is based on Soviet tanks, which didn't have the best optics in the world, nor the best guns. Soviets were also known for abandoning tank with damage and just going to get a new one, since they did not have the trained people to repair enmass as the Allies and Germans did. This may or may not impact the discussion, but at least we have a ballpark figure from some source. I defined a gun hit as a Gun Barrel hit, optics hit rendering the gun useless, or any internal damage to the gun causing the gun to be not to be able to be fired. Russian records are not the best, figures can be suspect, but my thanks to the Russian Tank museum for what help they gave me.

Use the information as you will.

Rune

[jshandorf]

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

This is from a thread a few weeks ago:

So the Sherman scored one gun damage out of 116 hits on the Tiger. Does that seem too high?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off... What range are you doing this from? Range matters greatly. With a longer range you get more of spread across the target.

Also, I think people mostly have complained about the Panther not the Tiger but I am not sure.

Second, why the heck is that damn Sherman so more accurate??? German tanks were always know for thier superior accurracy. That is ANOTHER thing that really bugs me. But that is another topic all together.

If I get time between laying tile tonight and CM I will run a simulation of my own with a Panther and a Sherman 76.

Jeff

[jshandorf]

Rune,

Good post. I see the numbers crunch out to be around 8%. Which says to me that CM has too many Gun Damaged results.

In the games I have played I know that I am batting ALOT more than 8% for my Gun Damaged hits. If I had to guess I would put it at %15 or so of all the tanks I have had.

Jeff

[Guest rune]

My apologies....didn't think of posting the url for the entire article. I found it at:

http://home.swipnet.se/~w-88268/documents/panzer/kursk.htm

Quite an interesting point of view.

Rune

[Bastables]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I suppose the change over from T.F.Z 12 to T.F.Z 12a sights is purely anecdotal (combination of reasons including increased strength) and the redesign of the cupola. Or the decision that the stabilized gunfights (SZF1) of the Panther F were to be arranged to open thru the roof of the turret much like the Abrams’s of today, in part to lessen the damaging effects that having a delicate sighting instruments located rigidly in an area which suffers repeated high velocity strikes. This also lessen the weak points which extend far more than just looking at the hole would have you believe. The same reasons why the drivers vision ports were omitted in favour of driver periscopes. These are not just statistics these are actions taken by people worried enough by anecdotes within context and statsics to actually do something about it. Never mind the fact that I’ve personally seen very few gun hits relative to the number of times I’ve played anyway. But then again maybe I should have explained that I took issue with Jeff’s belief that the incidence of optic damage was relatively small. Yes small enough that those German engineers began to address this small-scale incidence. But hey forget about providing any proof your side of this apparent polemic. Just keep on asking for proof from the green monster. Your sides the blue one, in case you wanted to know.

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

From the jshandorf

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

[Reaper]

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

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I suppose the change over from T.F.Z 12 to T.F.Z 12a sights is purely anecdotal (combination of reasons including increased strength) and the redesign of the cupola. Or the decision that the stabilized gunfights (SZF1) of the Panther F were to be arranged to open thru the roof of the turret much like the Abrams’s of today, in part to lessen the damaging effects that having a delicate sighting instruments located rigidly in an area which suffers repeated high velocity strikes. This also lessen the weak points which extend far more than just looking at the hole would have you believe. The same reasons why the drivers vision ports were omitted in favour of driver periscopes. These are not just statistics these are actions taken by people worried enough by anecdotes within context and statsics to actually do something about it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey,

Well, your data was from '43. So if all those changes occured, and the game takes place in '44 and '45 then doesn't that make the information from '43 invalid? If steps were taken to address these issues, there should be less occurences of serious gun damage, right?

Why does everyone have to be so hostile? This is a discussion. If you have relevant evidence, please present it. Don't presume that everyone has access to the same information you do. It is entirely possible that there is an error or an out of proportion average for gun damage. I greatly admire BTS for producing a highly accurate simulation, and I love the game. This does not mean that every calculation in the game is perfect. Most references I have read are too large in scope to address specifics about causes of casualties, but those same sources do address issues such as engine troubles. If your data can prove that there is some large proportion of gun damaging hits, then great. One report doesn't cut it though.

We could always drop this and go back to discussing really important things like hamsters...

Reaper

[jshandorf]

How, about a picture and some common sense?

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5abe.jpg

or check this one out http://storm.webvis.net/pantherbreech.html

Notice that VERY small hole to the right in the first picture? That is the sight for the gun. It is behind 13cm of armor and recessed back quite far. No look at the mantel picture... I don't see how the optics would be vulnerable in that picture.

The shock or kenetic energy from a shell, ask any mechanical engineer, (my best friend is one) spreads throughout the mass of the item struck. Therefore a front mantle hit would be spread throughout the mantel, the turret, and then finally the hull, in that order. In no case would it be directed inward and only around the front turret. It would SPREAD throughout the mass. Therefore the bigger the mass the more the energy spreads and dissapates. Can you say 44 tons?

Now I don't see where this sudden kenetic shock to the optics comes into play. If it does happen it is rare, i.e. a direct hit on the sighthole.

I have been reading dozens for pages on the Panther and it's mantle and I have yet to read one source that points out any sort of weakness about the mantle (other than the shot trap on the A) from shell hits. I HAVE read numerous statements about the transmission and the boggie wheels but zip, zero, nadda on the optics, that the gun is supseptable to damage, outside the norm, which since it is never mentioned.. well, means it is rare.

Jeff

[CavScout]

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

Perhaps for some. I am actually interested in the realism factor as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine and good but what are you using to say, or believe, that the current rate of gun damage isn't based in realism?

You can undertsand why "I think YOU are wrong so I want YOU to prove that I am wrong thinking what I think about you" is taken as it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have enough threats on the battlefield to contend with without a possibly erroneous percentage chance of losing my armament. Personally, I am now very curious about the factual data at this point. Bastables last post had a source from '43 regarding sights, but without a significant amount of corroborating evidence it is just an isolated incident. If these types of reports are littering war journals, then I'll happily shut up and treat my tanks with more kit gloves.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may be an "isolated incident" but so far has been the only thing offered up by either side. IMO, best thing to do is not get shot!

Cav

[jshandorf]

One more thing I forgot that just struck me...

Look at the barrel on the Panther. Does anybody see a recoil system? Tell me if I am wrong but it looks like the mantle is built into the barrel. I don't see any recoil absorbtion like on the Tiger with the 88.

With that in mine... If the optics were as fragil as some people would like to point out that means the optics have a chance of being damaged EVERYTIME the gun is fired. This is simple Newtons law here.

Thus a tank AP shell striking the mantel would have the same effect as a shell leaving the mantel. Roughly the same amount of energy, and thus roughly the same kenetic energy effect.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-12-2000).]

[jshandorf]

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

It may be an "isolated incident" but so far has been the only thing offered up by either side.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... How about this... Since so far there have been NO nurmerous accounts of the optics being vulnerable to mantlet hits then can't you say that it isn't an issue?

The shot trap, the weak transmision, and the boggie wheels locking up on the Panther A is documented on almost every web site talking about the Panther, so if the optics were an issue don't ya think SOMEONE would mention it?

Jeff

[CavScout]

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

Give me a break. You actually are going to compare a person being hit with a baseball bat with a tank being hit by a shell? Get real...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As opposed to what? "Feeling" a stat is bad? "Feeling" a tank should some how be safe from all but penetrating hits?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

These are the kind of analogies that are really pointless and only server to misguide.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it makes the point perfectly. Penetration is not required to cause damage. Somthing some seem to be implying.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

HESH ammo??? Huh??? What are you talking about?? We are talking about WWII not modern tanks and ammunition. Bringing this up is utterly useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, simply making a point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I for one would like the source material that supports all these guns hits.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would ALSO like to see that "source material" that disputes it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Let me ask.. What makes you think that the current model is correct other than your feelings? You have none.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's in the game. Untill I see something to the contrary I have no reason to think it is wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Heck, lets look at from a mathematical standpoint. Take the entire surface area that the mantlet takes up on a Panther. I would estimate it occupies probably around 10% of the surface are from a straight on perspective. Now that means on avergae that 1 out of every 12 hits or so will strike it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wouldn't 10% be 1 in 10 hits? Besides, how does one account for shots that deflect, or bounce into the gun mantle or gun barrel?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Now lets just guess at how many of those hits will actually cause any damage? Well, it won't be ALL of them and it won't be NONE. So, obviously it is in the middle. Hmmm.... Lets just hit it in the middle with 50%. That seem fair? OKay...

Want to geuss the number of gun hits that actually damaged the main gun now??? The answer is 4%. That's it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If one believed your numbers, of course, and this would only be mantle hits and not account for actual gun barrel hits, fragmentation from hits that damaged the barrel or effects of blast from explosives rounds.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Now do you think that is close to what you have seen in the game. Nope. I don't think so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have rarely seen gun damage from direct fire. I have seen more often with arty. Besides, IMO, basing statistics of one sample, yours, is very suspect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

So, there.... I have made an argument that is NOT based off of "I feels" and "I believes". Now tell me why I should adjust my numbers and then we can crunch the formula again and come up with a new percentage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, just based off "feelings" of measurements and suspect statistics. Heck it is worse than a "feeling" it is simply made up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Until then I stand by my claim that Gun Damage hits happen WAY too often.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's great.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-12-2000).]

[CavScout]

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

First off... What range are you doing this from? Range matters greatly. With a longer range you get more of spread across the target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on! You're not simply dismissing his "statistics" are you? Above you simply MADE UP statistics to support your assertion that gun hits happen to often and this guy does an in game test. Why would you question his far less than your own?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Second, why the heck is that damn Sherman so more accurate??? German tanks were always know for thier superior accurracy. That is ANOTHER thing that really bugs me. But that is another topic all together.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

/sarcasm on

That's right! Germans should never miss!

/sarcasm off

Saying "German tanks were always know for thier superior accurracy," is far too ambiguous. Are you saying no American in a Sherman could out shoot a German in a German tank? That's silly.

Cav