Buy More Zooks!

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by moosehead:

Now now, thats not true. I got one of your tanks with a zook. <hr></blockquote>

Yep. I corrected myself. It was our game I was talking about. You probably remember my long range shreck hit on that M8 sitting on the road. It was not a good day for tank crews

[PzKpfw 1]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

That is nothing, my Chreck shot down two allied fighter bombers then close assaulted a bunker!<hr></blockquote>

Bah, thats it 2???. My Cook in the HQ plt, took out 4 fighter bombers's with 4 Army issue spud's, fired from an old dirty & wet apron tied to two entrenching tools...

Regards, John Waters

[Battlefront.com]

Vanir Ausf B:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>CM rates the Tiger side turret to be at a 0 degree slope, but in fact the armor is not flat. It does curve along the horizontal plane, which could effect rounds that otherwise are marginal in their ability to penetrate that area (Sherman 75 and zook). It would perhaps be more accurate to assign a 10-15 degree slope to the side hull to reflect this (that number is a guess based upon nothing more than eyeballing overhead pictures, so don't take it to heart).<hr></blockquote>

Charles has some behind-the-curtain treatment for rounded surfaces. It is, as you say, a significant factor so it needs to be included. It isn't exact stuff, for sure, but considering that some rounded parts are multi surfaced (the early Porche King Tiger turret is about as bad as the come!) it is about the best that can be expected. Definitely more realistic with the aproximations in than out.

As for Jason's "tests"... all I see is axe grinding. Doesn't interest us. Why? Because we don't like his style? No, because we think his "evidence" is out of context and therefore not very informative. Beyond that, I am not going to get into a typical Jason style debate over it (like I got sucked into in the KT superiority thread), but instead get back to work on CMBB. Time much better spent

Steve

[JasonC]

Accompanying infantry doesn't always work. In a current game, I sent a squad to check out a tall wooden building on my left. If went through the ground floor, up to the upper story, got into a firefight with some guys beyond, and then came back to the ground story and near side to sulk away from that fire. A minute later, a bazooka team hits one of my Hezters in the flank from the same ground floor! It was 4m away from my squad, and still undetected! I guess they forgot to check the closets LOL.

[Diceman]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Vanir Ausf B:

As for Jason's "tests"... all I see is axe grinding. Doesn't interest us. Why? Because we don't like his style? No, because we think his "evidence" is out of context and therefore not very informative.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

Now if someone could give test evidence proving for instance that the American zook wobbled in flight, causing its penetration cabability to vary, now that would be interesting! Or maybe documented evidence that 95mm penetration test A was more valid than test B becouse test A was done by fireing the round from the weapon, while test B was done igniting the weapon while it was affixed to a test stand, now that would be interesting! The gauntel is layed down. Can anyone do this? I must confess I can't lean one way or another on these issues, as I don't have the reference material, but I'd love to see it, if its out there.

I must agree with Steve, circumstantial evidence proves nothing. Even the H35 clip was self contradictory. First the guy complains about not being able to take out the H35 with zooks, then he goes on about the tanks being knocked out!

[Redwolf]

If we really want to maintain that HC rounds are too effective in CM, we probably have to aim for showing how much variation they had, and not go after the ideal test report.

Reports posted in the King Tigers thread suggest that the variation is big. I would guess that BTS would be open-eared to lay a probability of -say- 70-100% on top of HC if we can provide hard evidence that this reflects reality better than the current constant.

This is probably easier to do than the knockout-on-penetration probability issue.

On the positive side, research on HC penetration variation is likely to come up with data on knockout probability for HC rounds as well.

[JasonC]

Well, I think everyone knows that if you shoot bazookas at the sides or rear of Panthers in CM, you kill them quickly and reliable - unless the zook rounds all miss.

My tests also showed that they can kill them from the front, with about 1/5 hits (someone else says 1/6, close enough for me), by hitting the lower hull or getting a weak point penetration on the low quality front turret. The kill chance with a hit from the front is 1/6 or better, and from the other aspects it is more like 5/6.

What did bazooka rounds really do to Panthers? You can see a WW II test run here -

http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html

[Diceman]

Now that was interesting! It appears that the jet stream of the bazooka was weak enough to be deflected by objects which caused it to detonate before making contact with the target armor. Based on the discription of the non-penetrating gouge, along with the comment: Upon the front armor, it is difficult to get an effective burst, as the slope of the armor will ricochet the rocket. "No perpendicular hits were obtained during the trial", it may also be possible that the bazooka round had a design flaw wich caused it to either ricochet or detonate at less than an optimum angle. Possible root causes include a wobble in flight causing it to hit at less than optimum angle ("No perpendicular hits were obtained during the trial"), b: the detonator on the round was defectively slow causing the rounds to shift from true or bounce off before detonation, c: the shape of the round did not allow reliable impact fuse contact on sloped armor resulting in ricochet, or d: (least likely given the amount of effort expended here) these guys weren't paying attention to the angle of shot. This also gives more credence to the effectiveness of side skirts against bazookas issue, especially the wheel hits (which would act in a similar manner to skirts).

Is there any colaborating evidence?

Cheers

Eric

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Diceman ]</p>

[JasonC]

I agree about the effect of obstructions - that is the most obvious aspect of the test data. And yes the same presumably applies with skirts, which may be a very important factor on StuG and Jagdpanzer in particular, with their thinner sides almost completely obscured by skirts.

But you left out a reason for deflections being common. The lower front hull of the Panther is sloped 55 degrees, and the rear hull is sloped 40 degrees. The effect of slope on unrifled HEAT rounds (which turn easily because they have no angular momentum maintaining their direction) may well be undermodeled. Especially compared to the supposedly enourmous influence of poor armor quality.

Slope effects AP shot by increasing deflection and by increasing the amount of armor along the flight path. I think CM models that part of things better than anything that has ever been done before. Slope's (and obstruction, come to that) additional effect on smoothbore HEAT is that changing the direction of the explosive jet is relatively easy, and makes a large difference in the explosive force striking the tank.

This seems to be borne out, or at least consistent, with the following cases of bazooka failure already mentioned, not currently reflected in CM -

1. The lower front hull hit in the test on that website failed, and it hit a highly sloped plate; in CM such hits succeed.

2. The invunerable Jagdpanzer-70 in front of Elsenborn had highly sloped front armor and skirts over the flat side plates. In CM the sides are easily penetrated despite skirts, and the lower front hull is penetrated despite the slope.

3. The T-34s faced by Task Force Smith had highly sloped armor, and bazookas failed to knock them out despite multiple hits. CMs 60 degree penetration rating would allow them to succeed, especially easily if the T-34 armor quality is even as low as 95%.

4. Many hits in the test did "no significant damage" because of obstructions on the surface of the tank. Such hits do occur in CM, but are common only when the rounds ability to penetrate the plate struck are marginal. When the zook has more than enough penetration, this rarely happens in CM.

For what it is worth.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[PiggDogg]

Tanaka,

I 'prefer' computer troops selection CM games as compared to human selection games. I do not 'dislike' human selection games. I just prefer computer choose games. However, I enjoy playing CM & I want to play the game as much as I reasonably can.

In order to play more and to have happy opponents, I play human troop selection games in deference to opponents who like to play such games. Additionally, I play human selection games because various tournaments require it.

These above reasons are quite rational and satifying to myself &, hopefully, my opponents.

Regarding the term 'armies', this is a colloquial referance to the CM squad and vehicle groupings that make up my reinforced company sized forces (1000 - 1500 points). I generally do not play games of much over 1500 points. Those really large games are too much like work. I'm playing for fun.

Further, the all Hetzer, all Jumbo, all nuclear arty, all paratrooper, all KingTiger "armies" are not & do not feel realistic. Indeed, I can human choose troops with the best of them, but I prefer to just 'make do' with what the computer gives me. :cool: :cool:

Cheers, Richard