Armor penetration system question

[Metto]

So does CMBB Armor penetration system take into account, where armor is supported or not? Manual doesn't talk about this. Example: (Image) The leftmost shot should penetrate easier than the rightmost.

[TheCrow]

CMBB take into account:

- Angle of incoming hit.

- Angle of armour plate hitted.

- armor thicknes hitted (Hull and turret; front, side, rear...)

[Moon]

And a host of other issues - shape of projectile (blunt nose, caps etc.), air resistance and so on. But two lower side hull hits are treated the same in game terms, i.e. the same percentages and calculations apply for determining if a penetration/K.O. occurrs. There is a random element in there as well, which could be said to simulate the variations in the precise hit locations in an abstract way (i.e. one hit will penetrate and do nothing, another one will penetrate and KO).

Martin

[Dan Robertson]

How armour is supported is usually covered by the principle of latteral confinement. This is as far as I know not covered in the game equation.

The actual meathod of support for the plate is pretty imaterial unless it is eleastically supported with the intention of causing yaw in the projectile.

Lateral confinement is related to how far an impact is away from an edge. When a shell penetrates a thick plate it will push a certain mass of armour through the plate in front of it, this is called plugging. However it will also bulge the plate and force the armour out of its path laterally, producing petals of metal on the armour as it splashes out of the way.

This will happen if the plate is large in area. However if the shell strikes a small plate or a large plate near the edge the amount of armour between the shell and the free edge of the plate decreases.

When the shell penetrates the armour it will push it aside, but because the plate has less material to the side of the shell there will be less of a resistive force since the shell has to move a lower mass of material.

This is partiularly prevelent around openings since there is no armour in the opening to resist latteral movement. The outer edges of the turret are less of a problem because they are backed up by the side plates of the turret.

So in actual fact the penetration of armour is counter intuative in that the lefthand impact being further from an edge would offer a superior resistance.

I suspect that the free edge effect is probably covered under the random penetration at weakspot part of the algorithem.

[moneymaxx]

I don't want to hijack this threat but it's a good opportunity to ask a question about the penetration system that I had since CMBO.

Some tanks like the Hetzer are very difficult to destroy from the front because of their (front) armour at extreme angles.

My questions:

A) Does a shot down from the top of a hill at the front armour of a Hetzer have a higher penetration probability, since the angle of impact is better?

Does a shot from a low velocity gun, e.g. a HC shell from an infantry gun, have a higher chance of penetration at larger distances, since the shell flies a ballistic curve and therefore the angle of impact should be better?

(I'd like to post pictures but I don't know how :confused: )

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by moneymaxx:

I don't want to hijack this threat but it's a good opportunity to ask a question about the penetration system that I had since CMBO.

Some tanks like the Hetzer are very difficult to destroy from the front because of their (front) armour at extreme angles.

My questions:

A) Does a shot down from the top of a hill at the front armour of a Hetzer have a higher penetration probability, since the angle of impact is better?

Does a shot from a low velocity gun, e.g. a HC shell from an infantry gun, have a higher chance of penetration at larger distances, since the shell flies a ballistic curve and therefore the angle of impact should be better?

(I'd like to post pictures but I don't know how :confused: )

1) Yes

2) AFAIK that doesnt actually happen. From what I've seen in my rather limited research, due to the spin imparted by rifling shells maintain the same angle of flight even when on a ballistic arc. I vaguely recall a study from the Blitz that found dud AA shells almost always landed base first on their return to earth.

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by moneymaxx:

Does a shot from a low velocity gun, e.g. a HC shell from an infantry gun, have a higher chance of penetration at larger distances, since the shell flies a ballistic curve and therefore the angle of impact should be better?

It is taken in account as mentioned in a thread called "T-34/85 owns the Hetzer" or so.

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

...

2) AFAIK that doesnt actually happen. From what I've seen in my rather limited research, due to the spin imparted by rifling shells maintain the same angle of flight even when on a ballistic arc. I vaguely recall a study from the Blitz that found dud AA shells almost always landed base first on their return to earth. [/QB]

Thank you for your answer. Answer number 2 is especially interesting. Wouldn't that mean that HC shells should have LESS penetrating power at greater distances if they keep their angle of flight, since the angle of impact would be even worse?

The angle of flight is actually another question I have. Shouldn't HE and HC shells from an infantry gun change it? Otherwise the fuse wouldn't impact if they landed on their base, or not? :confused: :confused:

[offtaskagain]

Perhaps this works differently for lower trajectory weapons than a high-angle AA gun.

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

It is taken in account as mentioned in a thread called "T-34/85 owns the Hetzer" or so. [/QB]

Congratulations Tools4fools, you have a perfect memory ( http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=001561#000000 ). But in the end, it wasn't clarified if this is included in CM or not.

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

Changes of the effective armor slope caused by height differences or vehicles standing on sloped ground were modeled in CMBO. But for the penetration calculations the shell's direction at the impact was treated like it was flying in a straight line from shooter to target (not affected by gravity). As I said, I don't know if this is included in CMBB.

[/QB]

[demoss]

>Perhaps this works differently for lower trajectory weapons than a high-angle AA gun.

If the lower muzzle velocity (I'm assuming that's what you really meant) guns aren't rifled, maybe. It's an effect of the spin of the projectile.

[Redwolf]

I've never heard that 2) is included in CM, but 1) is.