Neuer Art Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 After playing a scenario set in June 1941 where the Germans lost two Pzkw 38(t)'s in a row to gunfire from a T-26S, while their sole Pzkw IIc subsequently took several hits and still managed to knock out the T-26, I got to wondering. In modelling the efficiency of armor in the game, does CMBB take into consideration the effects of direct hits on riveted armor [such as the 38(t) has], where the rivets sometimes popped out and ricocheted around the interior of the tank? (For the record, both 38(t)'s were 300-350m away, with flank shots on the T-26, and the IIc later got within 200m front to front; all four crews were Regular; and all four tanks were fully exposed to one another). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by Neuer Art: [snips]In modelling the efficiency of armor in the game, does CMBB take into consideration the effects of direct hits on riveted armor [such as the 38(t) has], where the rivets sometimes popped out and ricocheted around the interior of the tank? What practical difference would this make to the game other than a slight (probably imperceptible) increase in the probability of crew casualties? How much of an increase would be necessary? (Please support your answer with references to sources giving numerical measures or estimates). Should the armour model also cater for "splash" from small-arms fire striking thin armour? Should it specifically represent damage classes such as broken periscope blocks, lost antennas or stowage fires? I think there comes a time in any tactical wargame's development when one should stop adding spurious detail to the armour model, and devote the effort to improving the modelling of the artillery, infantry and engineers. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuer Art Posted February 3, 2003 Author Share Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: What practical difference would this make to the game other than a slight (probably imperceptible) increase in the probability of crew casualties? John, thanks for the response. My query was posted in a moment of introspect, not one of criticism, though you're probably right in that I should've rustled up the citation I had in mind when posing the question. I think it was in Tank by Mackesey and Batchelor, but as I don't have it anymore, I'm not positive. I remember reading that riveted armor plate was phased out in favor of welded plate in part due to the ricocheting of rivets inside the tank after a hit (other reasons being it was cheaper and easier to weld). Anyone who's heard likewise? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: I think there comes a time in any tactical wargame's development when one should stop adding spurious detail to the armour model, and devote the effort to improving the modelling of the artillery, infantry and engineers. All the best, John.I disagree entirely. I expect the next version of Combat Mission to model the incidental, but critical effect of the chilling of snow on turret armour, which alters ricochet noises from PEEOOWNGG to PEEEEEOOOOOWWWNNGGG I find it hard to believe that you are prepared to sanction such laziness in terms of armour modelling, John. Your attitude disgusts me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuer Art Posted February 3, 2003 Author Share Posted February 3, 2003 Ok, I decided to look online for references to the ricocheting rivet phenomenon, and found several: Pzkw 38(t) (fourth paragraph) M22 Locust (third paragraph) US/British Mk. VIII Heavy Tank (WW1) (caption of Picture 5) Report on US Army Provisional Tank Group in the Phillipines (see 27.26/27 December entry for reference to wounding of a tank crewman with a rivet in his throat; the tank involved was an M3 Stuart with riveted armor) Those are just a few of the numerous references that I found online regarding the danger of ricocheting rivets inside a tank that has been hit by a sizeable shell. The shell in question did not even have to be of an anti-tank design; the wounding of the crewman in the fourth reference was caused by a field gun firing HE rounds (this incident was also documented in other online references). So, the issue of riveted armor could be significant enough to POSSIBLY warrant modelling in CMBB, along the lines of a slight increase in the likelihood of the crew being wounded or forced to abandon the tank after a hit. Just a thought, mind you. I welcome any and all serious responses ... thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike the wino2 Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Oooh I want one of dem Mk. VIII Heavy tankie things. Damn, non-multiple turret, old-as-all-hell CM engine. BTS, please fix or do somefink! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pud Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 I saw a documentary on tanks that said riveted armour "effectively falls to pieces" when taking hits. So I took that as being its armour protective value would degrade faster after each hit than would welded. Is this right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by Neuer Art: Ok, I decided to look online for references to the ricocheting rivet phenomenon, and found several: [snips] I don't think anyone is disputing the existence of this well-known phenomenon. The question I was asking (well, one of the questions) was how you propose to quantify the magnitude of this effect. What would be the right increase of incidence of crew casualties by partial penetrations -- 1%? 5%? 10%? 50%? Where would you expect to get data to justify any particular number? And, if the hazard of detached rivets is to be represented (except in the Cromwell, of course, which uses rivets with conical shanks to prevent this problem), what justification would there be for failing to represent all the other effects I mentioned? Why, indeed, would you not attempt to represent all aspects of behind-armour lethality? Ammo stowage policy (British tankers tried to avoid carrying rounds above the turret ring late in the war; the Panther's ammo layout is notably bad), proportion of internal volume occupied by crew and other vital elements (Soviet tanks are typically much less voluminous than their Western counterparts), the placement of potentially dangerous items such as batteries (I believe the Matilda's driver was exposed to some hazard from battery acid) and, indeed, whether the interior of the tank is painted (paint flecks could inflict painful if non-lethal injuries, and you wouldn't want to get one in your eye). You might even want to consider how much dust there is accumulated inside the tank -- I recall reading one account where a hit knocked all the dust out of the seams of a tank and obscured the crew's vision for some moments. Finally, welds are not without their problems; German tank construction was much criticised for exposing weld seams to direct attack, and they were reported to have quality control problems with welding, increasing the probability of a weld being sprung when a plate was hit. Assuming that it would be possible to find the data necessary to construct a model of this complexity, the end result of it all would for game purposes still be much the same as it currently is -- either some of the crew get hurt or they don't. As I've already indicated, I think there are very many areas where modelling effort could be spent much more profitably than in improving the projectiles vs. armour modelling in CM, which I think has reached about as high a pitch as is possible with the available data. If you want to add more detail to the tanky bits of the game, how about a detailed representation of the blind spots for each vehicle? It's a much more significant factor tactically than rivet-popping, and one that you stand more chance of being able to obtain hard data on. All the best, John. [ February 03, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuer Art Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by Pud: I saw a documentary on tanks that said riveted armour "effectively falls to pieces" when taking hits. So I took that as being its armour protective value would degrade faster after each hit than would welded. Is this right? Pud, it would make sense to me; if the rivets were to come apart under fire, the armor sheets could come loose, producing gaps and a degradation in protection and in crew morale, to say nothing of injuries. Interesting to see that this drawback, which was noted in WW1, was not wholly eliminated via the use of welded armor for at least another 25 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by Neuer Art: Interesting to see that this drawback, which was noted in WW1, was not wholly eliminated via the use of welded armor for at least another 25 years. The drawback is not eliminated by the use of welding, either, especially when they are exposed to attack. I don't imagine that there is any kind of armour whose performance is not degraded by repeated hits. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest konrad Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 ...active armour? no idea if its proper english terminology,but today somfink like this exist. ..but this reminds me a story of aunt Hilda and uncle Yalka ,where.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by lenakonrad: [QB] ...active armour? no idea if its proper english terminology,but today somfink like this exist. ..but this reminds me a story of aunt Hilda and uncle Yalka ,where.. OMG - the very next thread I look at, there they are again: "..." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuer Art Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: I don't imagine that there is any kind of armour whose performance is not degraded by repeated hits.John, very thoughtful response here and in your previous post. You make a good point about the different factors involved in "behind-armor lethality." I agree that it could get cost-ineffective to try modelling for the nuts and bolts (no pun intended) of these factors, while other issues could be more readily and more significantly addressed. However, I can't imagine that for AFV's with riveted armor, it would be all that difficult to assign an armor protection value of, say, -1% or -5%, depending on the relative number of reported injuries caused by ricocheting rivets. That shouldn't take more than a couple of hours, and probably would be negligible to the point of someone asking "I had a Pzkw 38(t) that was frontally hit by a grenade with no significant damage, yet my commander was killed. Why??" Just one of the rare and odd variables that make for unusual and often tragic results in war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neuer Art Posted February 4, 2003 Author Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by lenakonrad: ...active armour? no idea if its proper english terminology,but today somfink like this exist.Perhaps you're thinking of modern-day reactive armor? It's an armor design that uses a layer of PBx explosive overlaid with an angled metal plate. When an anti-tank round with a shaped charge, such as most shoulder-mounted AT missles use, hits the armor and projects its highly focused jet of molten metal, the PBx underneath the impact point explodes and pushes the angled plate out into the path of the jet, deflecting the latter's energy away from the hull of the tank. It's proven to be fairly effective within the parameters of the armor's design, and sometimes is fitted to AFV's such as the Bradley. Here is a link if you'd like to read more about this technology. 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.