Panzer76 Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: Actually, you can have LOS to a grey box tank. Usually in poor light/visibility or when the target is partially obscured by terrain. Yup, but then it's no longer a "Sound contact". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by Panzer76: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: Actually, you can have LOS to a grey box tank. Usually in poor light/visibility or when the target is partially obscured by terrain. Yup, but then it's no longer a "Sound contact". </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abteilung Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Actually, iirc, the only times I've seen Inquisitors targetted regulary were in night-time scenarios. Fog has been present on many of those scenarios. Then again, a few days ago, I had a Sherman 76 (A3) waiting to ambush an Inquisitor which was rounding a corner at dusk, clear skies, in open country with a few buildings scattered here and there. He panicked after being plinked a couple of times by some unknown shooter and opened rapid fire on the Inquisitor, knocking it out after five or six hits in a row. I moved a zook up and it was ID'd as a Panther G when he got a few meters away from it (like maybe 80-100 or so) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer76: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: Actually, you can have LOS to a grey box tank. Usually in poor light/visibility or when the target is partially obscured by terrain. Yup, but then it's no longer a "Sound contact". </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 The other interesting thing about LOS/sound is that once you've positively ID'ed a tank, it doesn't revert to a grey box after you lose LOS. You'll stil see it as a Panther or Sherman or whatnot, as long as it continues to be a sound contact. That's why you can sometimes still "see" tanks that are out of LOS. This puzzled me for a long time till somebody explained it. I thought I'd mention it here in case others are similarly puzzled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by Panzer76: So, the % of the different parts on different AFVs means nothing.oh god, what a ruiner. are you 100% sure? what a flaw in the engine. i wish i wouldn't have found out about this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by redwolf: If you would just shift a number of hit to the hull, that would be very elegantly be accounted for. This would require programming. Its a good idea but anything that requires programming at this point does not have a good chance perhaps. My suggestion about swapping mantlet/turret does practically the same thing with just value changes. Hopefully, the issue gets attention before the final patch gets done. I recently perused some Panzer IV books and soem turrets had additional tracks protecting this area. One had T34 tracks flapped over the loaders side. Another had a bracket that a track was put in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf: If you would just shift a number of hit to the hull, that would be very elegantly be accounted for. This would require programming. Its a good idea but anything that requires programming at this point does not have a good chance perhaps. My suggestion about swapping mantlet/turret does practically the same thing with just value changes. Hopefully, the issue gets attention before the final patch gets done. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 The left side vision port is for aiming the coaxial MG by the loader. He could unlatch the MG and swivel it about. this was deleted in later models. This area often had tracks, etc added on. The commanders station is actually a large target. Wasnt it armored fairly well though? Is it true the game just models turrets that simply? [ January 30, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 The Tiger has "reinforced turret" to simulate the mantlet, why couldnt the PzIV also get this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Joe Posted January 30, 2004 Author Share Posted January 30, 2004 Yup, a "reinforced front turret" as with the Tiger I would be enough to make me happy. But what tanks, other than the PZ-IV, should recieve this bonus? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 What about making the Panzer IV turret a 'rounded' armor? Could this also fudge it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Getting back to the original question:. It has been often theorized that the PzIV might be better off if it avoided hulldown positions, since this might tend to limit hits on its vulnerable turret front. I decided the time had come to test this theory. Though I think the results I got require further testing to be conclusive, they are certainly provocative, suggesting that at certain ranges the PzIV might really derive an advantage from being hull-up rather than hulldown. This will take a while to explain, so, if you’re interested, please bear with me. I set up a test course with ten tank firing lanes, each set off by a track of woods. On the allied side I set up a series of ranks of stone walls at 100m intervals, since stone walls provide instant hulldown. On the Axis side, I extended the stone walls for just five firing lanes and continue the line with dirt roads to mark the 100 meter intervals. Then I placed regular PzIVs in the Axis firing lanes (5 hulldown behind walls, 5 hull-up on dirt roads). These faced at 500 meters ten regular Sherman M4's (75mm), all ten Shermans hulldown. I tested the PzIVs vs. plain M4 Shermans at 500 in 3 three-turn battles—just three battles, but this was not the most interesting test. The survival results at this range suggested that there wasn't much difference--Shermans and PzIV were about even, and hulldown or hull-up for the PzIV's didn't seem to matter. The results include some examples where both tanks were killed--not surprising considering the close range. Shermans 30 Hulldown: 12 OK, 1 gun-damaged (gd) 17 Dead PzIVs 15 Hulldown: 6 OK, 9 Dead 15 Hullup: 6 OK, 1 immobile (im) 9 Dead PzIV Total: 12 OK, 1 im 17 Dead These results were so close that it seemed like it might take a massive sample to produce any kind of significant findings, though arguably the near equivalence of hulldown vs. hullup for PzIVs is itself significant—since one ought to derive an advantage from being hulldown. Anyway, I decided to extend the range to 800m and when I did, I expected to see an advantage for the Shermans vs. hull-up PzIVs. LOS tests before the battle showed a PzIVH having a 23%/OK hit/kill chance vs. a hulldown Sherman. OTOH a Sherman had a 35% OK chance vs. hull-up PzIV and 20% Good chance vs. hulldown PzIV. So I thought the hulldown vs. hulldown face-off would be about even (with a slight edge to the PzIV and the Sherm's would have a clear edge vs. the hull-up PzIV. The results were the opposite of my expectations. I did ten trials since these results seemed a lot more interesting (and the first three tests were way in favor of hull-up PzIVs. Things moved more to the middle in later tests.) After 10 tests at 800m, all three turn battles, with, again, a fairly high number of mutual kills. Shermans: 50 vs. hulldowns: 22 OK 50 vs. hull-up: 13 OK, 1 broken 100 Shermans: 35 OK, 1 broken PzIVs 50 hulldown: 16 OK, 1 rout off board (rob) 50 hull-up: 20 OK, 1 im, 2 rob Of 100 total: 36 OK, 3 rob, 1 im Here, while overall the totals look pretty even, the hulldown PzIV’s lost to the Shermans, with just 16 survivors on board vs. 22. But the hull-up PzIV’s beat the Shermans with 20 OK survivors on board (plus 1 im and 2 rob) vs. 13 OK Shermans and one broken. So, what does this mean. Well, first of all, the results are probably statistically to small to be conclusive. I tested 100 tanks, 50 hull-up and 50 hulldown, and that’s a bigger sample than in your average battle but too small, I’d guess to be conclusively significant. Still they might indicate trends. And what I think may be going on is that at 500m the hull-up PzIV can be killed with upper or lower hull shots. But at 800m, the Sherman’s upper and lower hullshots will often bounce or produce non-lethal penetrations I didn’t count all the hits but close observation showed this to be a clear trend.. And so the effect of concentrating shots on the turret really does hurt the hulldown PzIV at 800m (since a Sherman 75 can kill a PzIV turret at any range) and to be hull-up really helps. At closer ranges, like 500 m, where even front hull shots often produce kills on PzIVs, it doesn’t seem to make much difference. I’m about tested out on this, but if anyone would like to try the tests further I’d be glad to send the test scenario file. The stone walls/roads are ranged at 100m intervals, so it would be easy to test the tanks at different ranges (or set up other tests with different tanks.) My email address is in the profile. [ January 30, 2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 CombinedArms, I did the same tests a long time ago. I came to the conclusion that there is no additional hidden mechanism, so the simple assumption from the hit probabilities apply - the Panzer IV is better off hull-up than hull-down for most situations. As for treatment, clearly you don't want to give the Panzer IV the same treatment as the Tiger. While the Panzer IV might be stronger than just basic thickness, the Tiger construction offer a lot more cover over a lot more space. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Originally posted by Kitty: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Hmmm, it seems as if a post of mine has vanished from this thread as well. Maybe it will pop up somewhere else. Michael Thank god and I hope not. =)</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 This photo shows the spare track bracket I have seen on production models. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 This interior view shows there is no extra material on the gunners side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 This is the loaders side. The MG would be behind the mantlet. The area to the right has soem sort of stowage box. In my opinion, the panzer IV turret should have been redesigned. The vulnerable areas house nothing and should have been narrowed so they showed a more sloping effect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 This angle shows that a AP round would encounter the spaced armor, track plate and then the 50mm armor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 In regards to hull down, I think the game should model size as a function of gun depression. This means the silhouette applicable when hull down is determined by vehicle size and gun depression. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 According to the Panzer IV universe website, the Mantlet is 50mm rounded. I take the shield (30mm?) to be additional armor in front of this cast piece. So the effective armor of striking the shield/mantlet (look at the picture above) is quite stronger than the vertical 50mm turret front that protects the gunner/loader. The copula is actually 100mm in parts it seems. Does anyone really know what 'rounded' armor means in game terms? How does the math work? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: Does anyone really know what 'rounded' armor means in game terms? How does the math work? It varies from AFV to AFV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 I notice a Jagdpanzer IV (early) has 60mm curved armor on its superstructure. I take this to be the upper hull area? This would include the cast pigs head mantlet AND the flat sloping front that holds the weapon? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 That additional armor skirt on the turret wouldn't account for much additional protection at all against a tank round. It was only soft steel and not true 'armor', mounted to cause pesky Russian anti-tank rifle rounds to tumble before hitting the turret. I don't see where strengthening the PzIV turret front would be called for in the game. Sure its annoying to keep losing your tanks to 'turret front penetration' but it was an inefficient 1930's design and it gives about as much protection as an inefficient 1930s design would. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 2, 2004 Share Posted February 2, 2004 Originally posted by Panzer76: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: Does anyone really know what 'rounded' armor means in game terms? How does the math work? It varies from AFV to AFV. </font> 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.