Redwolf Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: I think that he's being picky about spelling. I suggest he'd be better off thinking about spalling, not spelling. Har har har. In any case I guess my German would beat his English and given he recognized the word it didn't appear to be all that bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: Armour hardness is modelled, witness the change of given AP values in CMAK from CMBB because the majority of armour around the Med wasn't hard/face-hardened. Adding on a liklihood of spalling proportionate to the armour hardness would seem to be simple and worthwhile. No, it's not that simple. The new values are for face-hardened. I am sure CM only care for face-hardened and doesn't have a value for overall hardness, which would be the only one useful to modify the spalling chance. Except if the above about the Panther G is true, that it got an extra high value in CMBB. I don't remember to ever read that BFC actually did this, though. My assumption so far is that the chance is constant for all vehicles. In any case, you can't just punish face-hardened armor along the same lines as plain hard armor. Case in point, the Panther glacis plate is not face-hardened although it certainly was brittle for most non-early Panthers. But the brittleness is not a result of hardening, it was a result of missing alloy components. 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.