Armor modeling

[mrcitizenkane]

Cant we all just get along? Im glad there is so many passionate about the game and people who post regularly. My wife got the game for x-mas for me and Im still in the learning curve but hope to take on some real opponents soon. I like the game very much. I play CC3 often too but it seems BF is becoming more of my passion as far as games go. Good Day and playing on!

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

He started it! Any-way, I posed a question. He started by insulting me, knowing nothing about me. I admit I should have took the higher ground and been more mature then I was, but so should he. People tend to take thing to personal when you are looking for constructive criticism sometimes.

<hr></blockquote>

[Battlefront.com]

Specter,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Watch out for the CM fanboys, they will tell you its your tactics or combat mission is infallible.<hr></blockquote>

You know... stuff like this really annoying, especially because 9 out of 10 times statements like the one which started this thread are derrived from bad tactics or poor undestanding of historical facts. But the "fanboy" stuff is really annoying because it implies that critical debate is impossible here. If this BBS were not open to critical thinking, then why in the heck would anybody waste their time here? Why would we even host this BBS? Just for the joy of having people berate and belittle us and others? Certainly not

Critical thinking does not equal blind support, but name calling does call into question one's character. We know that not everything in Combat Mission is perfect. Duh, how could it be? In 2 years I have not seen us or anybody else state that it is perfect. Yet the tired "fanboy" accusation surfaces far too often when that side loses, or fails to win, an honest debate of the facts.

Do some people argue on our behalf stronger than they should? Are they sometimes arguing something that turns out to be wrong? Sure. But I see far more of this happening the other way around where people are arguing strongly (and often abusively) against the game, us, or supporters. And very often they are proven wrong or leave the debate early because they know they aren't up to the challenge of proving a case.

Labling a side which is good at debating the facts "fanboys" is an admission that they are better researchers and or debaters. It is the cyber equivalent to punching someone in the nose during a rational discussion simply because you can't "win" the debate any other way.

I've also noticed when one side can't argue their case better than someone else, even if it we aren't involved, our integrity is quickly called into question. If that works for you, it's your life. However, it won't make someone suddenly drop our rational lines of argument and say "gee, you were really nasty to me, so I guess I'll just admit that you are right and go home now". I only wish we could judge such people's work as offhandedly and unfairly they do other's. I bet it would be pretty easy to do.

Hopefully Mrcitizenkane will at least take one lesson away from this thread. If someone has a point to make, then make it clearly or expect it to not receive a warm welcome. Unsupported, blanket, matter of established fact type posts like the one that started this thread are of no value and automatically call into question the poster's motivations. Especially when they follow up with abusive posts instead of realizing this very simple fact.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Mitch,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>He started it! <hr></blockquote>

And you accused Rune of being 13?

Yes, we can all get along. For sure. And there are many cases of people coming to this forum with their no-so-best foot forward and then having all forgotten very quickly when the better one is put forward instead. Obviously you found out (the hard way) that there is a certain sensitivity to posts such as your original one. We call them "drive bys". They consist of a short, squishy criticism (generaly about Germans being too strong or too weak) and then it goes down hill from there.

I am not going to defend people for jumping to conclusions, but I do totally understand why they did. Usually when it looks like, smells like, and tastes like chicken it is. But sometimes it is just a duck a misunderstood duck I think that is what happened here.

Steve

P.S. Keep in mind that there is over 3 years and 300,000 posts to this forum. Chances are if you have a concern or criticism, it has been answered/debated at least a dozen times before. The Search function of this forum isn't fantastic, but it mostly works.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Mitch,

Forgot to thank your wife for the purchase and to extend a welcome to you. You'll find this an interesting place for information, one that is far more condusive to critical discussion than any other place I know of. At least we try to keep it that way!

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

Rune:

I think you are misconstruing what Rexford (aka Lorrin Bird) has been preaching regarding flawed armor on the Panther. What Lorrin and Robert Livingston have clearly indicated in there booklet "World War II: Armor and Gunnery" is that only about 50% of Panthers were constructed with flawed glacis plates.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>For wargaming and research purposes, it might be reasonable to assume that 50% of Panther Glacis armor is good quality, with [the] rest varying from low to high severity flaws. <hr></blockquote>

In addition Lorrin and Robert indicate that the impacts of flawed armor on penetration are a function of T/D ratio (thickness of armor relative to the diameter of the impacting round).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Panther glacis flaws would have most impact when projectiles overmatch armor thickness. When a 17-pounder APCBC hits 85mm at 55 degrees armor, medium flaws would reduce armor resistance by 5% (0.95 armor quality multiplier), whereas 152mm APCBC hits would overmatch 85mm armor to the point where effectiveness would decrease by 17.5% due to medium flaws (82.5% of good quality armor resistance). <hr></blockquote>

It is also implied within "World War II: Armor and Gunnery" that flawed armor plate was restricted to the big glacis plate on the Panther. Other armor on the Panther - again according to "World War II: Armor and Gunnery" -- was apparently "good quality plate".

Lorrin and Robert indicate that flaws are a function of both quenching errors and reduction in critical alloys. Although we might assume that there was a uniform reduction in alloys between plate manufactures, how can we assume quenching errors would be uniform? In my humble opinion it is unrealistic to assume a uniform loss in ballistic protection would occur - i.e. the across the board 85% quality figure should really be variable.

There are also added variables to ballistic protection that make a uniform 85% quality figure less likely. "World War II: Armor and Gunnery" indicates that uniformity in plate thickness was not a reality. This makes a great deal of since as plate thickness specifications indicate production tolerances of 0 to +5% of nominal plate thickness for the Panthers glacis. Manufacturing flaws might degrade ballistic resistance, but allowable thickness tolerances might add several millimeters of additional material to a glacis. It was noted in a rather voluminous study conducted under the auspices of the British Supply Ministry following the war that German plate manufactures were probably sneaking on extra millimeters of armor in order to pass the rather stringent Germany ballistic quality control standards. The quality control standards included ballistic testing of randomly picked plates from every melt. And although alloys were being reduced as the war progressed, the ballistic test specifications remanded unchanged. Plate manufactures apparently began pushing plate thickness tolerance to insure plates would remain capable of passing ballistic test standards.

It is important to note that even a flawed Panther Glacis was very potent in its protection abilities against Allied weapons up to and including the 17-pounder. Evidence of the Panthers resilience against frontal attacks is fairly evident based upon interviews with Allied Tankers. In addition these same firing trials that Lorrin often refers to (Isigny, Aberdeen etc) also suggest that the Panthers glacis could be a very tough nut to crack.

When examining these firing trials is the effect of metal fatigue resultant from successive high velocity impacts can't be ignored. Steel that is pushed from elastic deformation to plastic deformation (permanent deformation) will exhibit far less resistance to additional imparted energy before complete failure. Firing trials conducted during the war often took the form of shooting the daylights out of a captured tank (see the RMZ photos of King Tiger 503 following the Red Army's Kubinka firing trials). One should be wary of accepting all results of firing trials without knowing the following:

• Whether the tank being subjected to the firing trial had brewed-up prior to being hauled to testing grounds.
• Had the tank received impacts or even penetrations from high velocity ordnance during normal combat prior to being captured and hauled off to testing grounds
• Once on the testing grounds was the tank shot into Swiss cheese (i.e. each test round that hits a target plate results in an incremental decrease in the plates ability to absorb additional punishment).

So if we accept the theories of Lorrin and Robert we are left with:

50% of all Panthers had good quality armor

Some portion of the remaining Panthers have small flaws

Some portion of the remaining Panthers have moderate flaws

Some portion of the remaining Panthers have large flaws

Some proportion of Panthers with either unflawed or flawed armor may have had thicker armor as a result of manufactures pushing thickness tolerance specs. Ballistic resistance creeps up.

The ballistic resistance of Panthers with flaws is a function of T/D ratio. Impacts by Allied calibers ranging from 6-pdr through 17-pdr…57mm through 85mm results in only limited reduction of ballistic resistance.

Consulting "World War II: Armor and Gunnery" a US Army 76mm firing APCBC at a Panthers glacis results in a T/D = 1.12. Assuming worst case…large flaw @ an angle of attack of 55 degrees we are left with a flaw multiplier of about 0.9. Assuming minor flaws for the above example we get about a 0.98 flaw multiplier.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]</p>

[gunnergoz]

Steve and the BTS team are OK in my book. If every US firm devoted this much time and energy towards their product, clientele and ethics, we'd not have the likes of Enron and K-Mart happening. Sure, they're not infallible and I disagree with a number of things I've read in their forums, but all in all it is a very commendable outfit and I for one am sticking around for good.

Now, Steve and the rest of you paranoids of virtue: getthehellbacktowork!

[Urban Shocker]

Here are the basics for legitimate criticism (i.e., it will be taken seriously):

(1) You have an explicitly well described situation ideally with the saved turn during which the questionable event occurred.

and/or

(2) Some written material from an official source with a reasonable interpretation on your part as to why CM is not reasonable in its modeling of the situation.

or

(2a) You actually did armor testing with said vehicles and have the raw data to share with us.

Think of the whole game as a hypothesis on how things went during combat during WWII. The only way to get a hypothesis changed is by presenting data that conflicts with or contradicts the hypothesis.

Furthermore, isolated incidences do not necessarily pass as good data. Unless the occurrence is so grievous that it defies common sense or is outside the realm of possibility, you need a repeated occurrences of an illogical event for it to be a flaw.

Hope this helps.

[Battlefront.com]

Jeff,

I can't speak for Rune does or does not understand, but I can tell you that we have followed the debates and have discussed this issue with Lorrin privately on several occasions. Your question...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In my humble opinion it is unrealistic to assume a uniform loss in ballistic protection would occur - i.e. the across the board 85% quality figure should really be variable. <hr></blockquote>

We agree. But our hands are tied when it comes to fixing this. CM's engine can not handle vehicle by vehicle variable armor ratings/quality, nor can it specify an individual piece to treat as flawed. This is an even greater problem for Soviet stuff which had very shoddy production standards and pressures for "more" instead of "better". Lorrin's research into this has turned up all sorts of tidbits that would require maybe a 1/2 dozen different T-34s of a single type simply because of the different levels of production quality. This we can not do since the game engine can not handle it.

Howeve, Lorrin's research (as presented directly to us, not sure if different than what you have seen) is a little bit different than what you have presented. Evidence and logic suggests that it is likely that the "50%" with no problems were the Panther D and a decent chunk of the Panther A production. In other words, the defective plates applied to probably 75% of the Panthers as seen in CMBO (or 100% if playing with Panther Gs).

If this is true, then things would look more like:

0% of all Panther Ds had good quality armor

50% of all Panther As had good quality armor

• Some portion of the Panther As have small flaws

• Some portion of the Panther As have moderate flaws

• Some portion of the Panther As have large flaws

0% of all Panther Gs had good quality armor

• Some portion of the Panther Gs have small flaws

• Some portion of the Panther Gs have moderate flaws

• Some portion of the Panther Gs have large flaws

This left us with a choice. Either do nothing or do something. Doing nothing didn't appear to be the right way to go, so we did something. Now we can argue until the cows come home about if the decision we made was the best one, but we still think we made the right move. When the CM engine is rewritten we will build in the functionality to simulate variable thickness/quality into each major armored surface.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

"When the CM engine is rewritten we will build in the functionality to simulate variable thickness/quality into each major armored surface."

And that will MOST certianly open a BIG can of worms!

I can just hear the critics/trolls/naysayers/syncophants screaming about this now. It would certainly introduce ANOTHER key variable of LUCK to armour combat, makeing the "science" of WWII armour penetration wildly unpredicatable....

(unless of course you the player (either player) can KNOW the tank in question is of defective armour quality and in reality I highly doubt the crew of said tank (or the crew of the targeting tank) would know that so the player in the game should theoretically not know that until perhaps after it is KO'd or after the game is over, should that tank be foruntate enough to survive the battle....

" variable thickness/quality into each major armored surface" !!! :mad:

I am in NO WAY critical of this initiative for the engine rewrite (After CMBB if I understand correctly) but it will take ALOT more explaining to the naysayers than the current model.

(Lucy LUCY! You got some splanin' to do!)

(Bad joke from American TV Sitcom Golden era)

It is something to look forward to for sure!

Keep up the good work!

-tom W

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

[rune]

Steve summed it up best. We did have a conversation not seen, that Rexford and others saw as a way I suggested to model the variable armor on the t34. It was then I found out that the coding would not allow variations per tank. As Steve said, modelling perfect plate during this time span would not be accurate. Rexford, did you post the information about Krupp and the armor plate here also? So a number was reached.

All in all, you can't please everyone. Also everyone should remember a lot of these findings did NOT come out until 20 months after the game was released. I think the game brought interest to the whole issue, as pre-CMBO I could of cared less.

Imagine the whining when a Romanian 75mm has slightly better penetration then its German counterpart. Can you name the guns?

Rune

[JonS]

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

... When the CM engine is rewritten we will build in the functionality to simulate variable thickness/quality into each major armored surface.<hr></blockquote>

Sweet. I look forward to it. One thing I would like to see eventually, FWIW, is variability/randomness in nearly everything - thickness of plates, amount of flawing, response time of squads to orders, speed of vehicles, rate of fire, 'power' of rounds - be it HE or AP, obstruction of LOS by terrain and smoke, etc.

IOW, all the things we take for granted at the moment (eg, an unsuppressed veteran squad under command of a Pn HQ with a +2 command rating will always start executing its orders exactly and 5 seconds after the start of the turn) would instead be uncertain. In some cases the bell-curve would be quite narrow (for example plates varying between 80 and 82mm), and in other cases it could be quite wide (for example quality of plates varying between 60% and 100%). All of this should probably be invisible to the players (until after the scen maybe), and would, IMHO, add a great element of uncertainty and therefore excitement - will that Panther really be an uberPanzer, is is it just a creampuff because of armour flaws? Will my men react to orders in time, or are they on a smoko break? And so on.

In some cases the randomness could vary from turn to turn. Sometimes your squads might react promptly, other times not. Some turns the thick fog will limit LOS to 25 metres, a few turns later it might have lifted a bit so that visibility is 120m. Or thickened even more and reduced it to 15m. And so on.

Well, that's my stream-of-consciousness thought for the day. FWIW

Be cool

JonS

PS All the numbers and values used above are purely off the top of my head. They should be used as illustrative, not definitive.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: JonS to keep The Anglophile on his toes ]

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

Not to worry. Everything that we do is beat to a bloody pulp by a select few

Rune,

Yeah, what you said Especially the thing about new evidence coming out long after the game was finalized.

JonS,

Actually, many of the things you mentioned are indeed variable even in CMBO. That is an inherent part of Fuzzy Logic. However, the differences will generally not be noticable to you unless you use a stopwatch or look at things in carefully controled environments (i.e. using the Editor). Take a battalion of infantry of the same Experience on a flat field in a game without anybody shooting at them. Select all units and then send them forward. You will notice that they do not all robotically get up at the same exact split second and move forward. The worse the Experience, the greater the difference between the first and last units getting up and moving.

Steve

[JonS]

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

JonS,

Actually, many of the things you mentioned are indeed variable even in CMBO. That is an inherent part of Fuzzy Logic. However, the differences will generally not be noticable to you unless you use a stopwatch or look at things in carefully controled environments (i.e. using the Editor). Take a battalion of infantry of the same Experience ...<hr></blockquote>

Right - cheers for that. Maybe I didn't pick good examples. My point is that I'd eventually like to see more things (nearly everything?) being variable.

[Battlefront.com]

JonS, point well taken. Honestly, practically everything that REALLY matters in CM has variability (like penetration stuff, shatter gap, etc.). The main thing that has no variability is what a unit is inherently. So a tank either has all skirts or no skirts, good armor or bad armor, etc. While the properties of each can be accurately modeled, there is no way to have, for example, a Panzer IV H with 3 plates of skirt armor on the right and 2 on the left. This is the sort of things need to be variable but can't be at the moment. All good things come to those who wait

BTW, there once was a time when many of the things you mentioned were NOT variable. Man, it was like playing with an army of Terminators! Imagine 6 Shermans all doing this at once... "20 miiiliiimeeetooor gun onda riiiight, 321 meaatas. Fiiiiya. Reeelode. Fiiiiya."

Steve

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Fieldmarshall]

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

MadMatt

Just for FYI. Why didn't they do the game really time with a little more AI instead of turn based? Is it because of the graphics processing?

I'll do some more research on aromor issue, any-one can be wronge. Thanx

<hr></blockquote>

Christ Almighty!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a god damned GAME!!!!!!!!! Yes the realism is wonderfull, I am a huge World War II enthusiast meself, and I love researching the war. But SHUT THE HELL UP!! It is a game! Did ASL calculate every god damned little thing?! I can imagine it now:

"NO NO! Your tank was 100.5464 meters away, and the random number system calculated a richochet, JESESUS THATs Bullsh*t!! THIS BOARDGAME ISNT MODELLED PROPERLY!!"

Listen who ever you are Cough*GUNNYBUNNY* Cough!!, if you hate this game so god damned much...yes thats right its a game wow!! For gods sakes, do you expect every little inch of detail to be modeled!? There are alot of things missing, yet this game is great and if you cant appreciate all of the work the boys at BTS put into then then GO PLAY MONOPOLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, thats my two cents

--Niles

[Jeff Duquette]

Steve:

As usual, my interest in seeing sweeping overnight changes being implemented in Combat Mission are relatively close to nil (with the exception that I would like to see a comprehensive campaign system incorporated into the game at some point in the future).

Regarding the constant 85% flawed armor factor used in CMBO it is my understanding that BTS's use of 85% is based upon discussions with Robert Livingston. I am assuming that Robert and Lorrin's "Armor Flaw Model" was not in such an advanced stage at the time CMBO was originally released. So I am guessing you folks used the best information available to you at the time.

I am simply elaborating a little on what has been put forth in "WW-II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery". Lorrin's discussion on flawed Panther glacis plates does not mean the Panther wasn't a very difficult tank to destroy when engaged frontally. Even Lorrin will not argue that. In addition cracked welds manifesting themselves along the Panthers glacis contact with the side hull plates or lower hull plate are by no means a disaster. The interlocked connection between plates was the real strength of the system. Welding was redundency...engineers love redundency...plus the welds kept out the rain.

Part of the challenge associated with reading through the present iteration of "WW-II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery" is that Lorrin is continuously posting errata to his work based upon some new bit of information that is fed to him. He will also discard errata in favor of new information. It is difficult to know what is current within the manual and what has been subjected to errata. This is not to say I don't highly recommend armor buffs opening their wallets and getting a copy of the thing and leafing through it. It is very thought provoking. I suppose there is a method to Lorrin's madness and his "living document" approach to "WW-II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery". Perhaps this is analogous to the patching process for computer games?

Regarding the various models of Panthers and relative glacis flaws, this level of detail is not discussed in "WW-II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery". Or if it is it is not elaborated upon in the books Section on "Armor Flaws". However, I have seen Lorrin going on a bit about glacis quality relative to model type on various web sites. I would agree that the tendency toward reduced ballistic quality might be more of a trait in latter war models, although ballistic quality testing standards -- according the British Ministry of Supply Study "BIOS" -- remaind the same throughout the war. Presumably Lorrin has covered this in another errata posted somewhere on the Internet?

I presently disagree with some of the correlations Lorrin is drawing between glacis plate quality and the various firing trial reports he references. To reiterate it is important to understand the state of vehicles being subjected to ballistic testing. This is a relatively important boundary condition when trying to draw conclusions from firing trial results.

Did the tank brew-up during combat? A relatively routine reason for the Germans to abandon a Panzer was because it had burned.

Had the tanks armor has been penetrated during combat and subsequently patched? It was relatively common to patch penetrations in a tanks armor plate. Weld a plug into the hole. Grind it down and paint it. Throw in a new bright-eyed crew and send the vehicle back to war.

Did the Germans set-off demolition charges in the tank before abandoning it? The Germans would routinely blow up Tigers and Panthers they felt could not be recovered and repaired.

The above scenarios were relatively common and will affect the ballistic quality of a tanks armor plate. Long before ordnance folks get there hands on a tank and shoot it full of holes, the tanks armor may have already been subjected to a fair bit of battering on the battlefield.

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]</p>

[aka_tom_w]

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

JonS, point well taken. Honestly, practically everything that REALLY matters in CM has variability (like penetration stuff, shatter gap, etc.). The main thing that has no variability is what a unit is inherently. So a tank either has all skirts or no skirts, good armor or bad armor, etc. While the properties of each can be accurately modeled, there is no way to have, for example, a Panzer IV H with 3 plates of skirt armor on the right and 2 on the left. This is the sort of things need to be variable but can't be at the moment. All good things come to those who wait

BTW, there once was a time when many of the things you mentioned were NOT variable. Man, it was like playing with an army of Terminators! Imagine 6 Shermans all doing this at once... "20 miiiliiimeeetooor gun onda riiiight, 321 meaatas. Fiiiiya. Reeelode. Fiiiiya."

Steve

[ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<hr></blockquote>

" there is no way to have, for example, a Panzer IV H with 3 plates of skirt armor on the right and 2 on the left. This is the sort of things need to be variable but can't be at the moment. All good things come to those who wait "

WOW

That will really make things interesting

The idea's you have for the engine rewrite sound VERY inovative and, well, almost radical!

But Good! I mean REALLY good

Don't forget terrain fog of war and the opportunity for units to get really good and lost and loose their way. ( I know that HAS NOTHING to do with the current discussion of armour modeling, but it was something that was discussed long ago that would make things more interesting it would be kind of fun and some what realistic to have a unit get lost in the dark of night in the fog in a forest/woods for a few turns)

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Fieldmarshall,

While we do appreciate posts of support, we do not appreciate posts like the one you just made. Especially after things have calmed down and everybody originally involved has taken some deep breaths. Also Matt has already had to slap around some people for jumping at Gunny Bunny shadows that are not really there, so please do not assume someone to be someone else. If you suspect something, send an email to Matt and tell him why. Trust me, we have ways of confirming these things. We even have a pretty good idea about who Gunny Bunny is in real life, which helps.

Jeff,

Thanks for the follow up. Yes, Lorrin keeps digging things up all the time, doesn't he? Some of the new things he has dug up is, like many other things, incomplete and in conflict with previously "sanctified" sources.

IIRC he now has 2:1 qualified studies that document declines in German armor quality vs. the BIOS report. Clearly something is wrong if these reports so directly disagree with each other. However, if I had to put a bet I would place my money on decline rather than maintain or (as one report about something else hinted at) an INCREASE in quality. Hehe... man, just can't get a straight answer about nutt'n, eh?

As for what would happen when a significant round hit the front of a "weakned" Panther... your points are well taken. IIRC Lorrin found Soviet reports of clear penetrations in their tests. In other words, it didn't just crack the welds the round went straight through when tested on a Panther G but bounced off the D model.

I know you talk with Lorrin all the time so perhaps he can fill you in directly. Honestly, my head is swimming with too much stuff right now so I am not the best source to get this from right now. All I know is that when I read the stuff it was very interesting and supported the modeling choice we made in CMBO, even though we TOTALLY agree with you that it is definitely a compromise.

As for the Panther being tough to take out from the front... in general it is. Or at least it should be if the matchup is historically correct and the German player is carefull with his assets. As is often the case much of the sense that the Panther is easy to take out has to be dismissed once you hear HOW the cat met its death. Some can also be dismissed because we were perhaps overly generous with Tungsten rounds (VERY hard to know the answr to that one!) which gives some guns thaty critical edge in the right circumstance.

I also think comparing real life to CM is difficult at best. If I were in a Sherman I would avoid a frontal duel with a Panther. Period. Especially if I had already been burnt out of a couple of tanks and/or seen many of my friends scattered on the insides of theirs. But in CM there is no such enforced fear so right there the game breaks with reality in a fundamental way.

Nice to debate with you again after such a long time.

Steve

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

Christ Almighty!!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a god damned GAME!!!!!!!!! Yes the realism is wonderfull, I am a huge World War II enthusiast meself, and I love researching the war. But SHUT THE HELL UP!! It is a game! Did ASL calculate every god damned little thing?! I can imagine it now:

"NO NO! Your tank was 100.5464 meters away, and the random number system calculated a richochet, JESESUS THATs Bullsh*t!! THIS BOARDGAME ISNT MODELLED PROPERLY!!"

Listen who ever you are Cough*GUNNYBUNNY* Cough!!, if you hate this game so god damned much...yes thats right its a game wow!! For gods sakes, do you expect every little inch of detail to be modeled!? There are alot of things missing, yet this game is great and if you cant appreciate all of the work the boys at BTS put into then then GO PLAY MONOPOLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, thats my two cents

--Niles<hr></blockquote>

HAHA! My thoughts exactly. I don't understand how so many people can be so anal about such a good game. If your that anal about the game go back to playing panzer general like you did for all those years. If you manage to play that game for any longer then a day, then you need to ask youself why you are bitching about the possibility the panthers gacis could be off by a 1/10 of a millemeter.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Next time i'll scroll down more before posting....i have the best timing....

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Steve Said: IIRC he now has 2:1 qualified studies that document declines in German armor quality vs. the BIOS report.<hr></blockquote>

I suspect we are talking about two different things here. BIOS is based upon captured German documents detailing war time armor plate manufacture. I am not sure what you mean by two qualified studies that refute BIOS as there is nothing really to refute, at least nothing relative to the particulars of this discussion.

[Battlefront.com]

Jeff, did I mention my brain is like a sponge which has absorbed a wee bit too much this week? OK, not the BIOS report then. But my point is that a while back Lorrin found some sources of info which cast doubt that the quality of German armor didn't suffer some pretty serious quality setbacks as the war ground to an end. And that these problems, particularly with the Panther glacis, could result in some unfavorable battlefield results (i.e. a knockout when an earlier Panther in the same situation would have survived).

The results of a British and a different US test vs. 4 previously unscathed vehicles showed that 17 pdr AP, 17 pdr APCBC, and 90mm APCBC managed to cause cracks, spring welds and cause some complete penetrations which in theory they should not have been able to do. It would appear that these are the same things in CMBO that the more informed players have complained about (i.e. not a Sherman putting a hole in the side armor at 32m complaints ).

I do not have permission to quote you what he sent me, but I am sure he would provide you with this information if you emailed him. But I figured he wouldn't mind if I shared this info with you directly.

Interesting stuff, no? Funny to think that there is "breaking news" like this some 56+ years after the fact!

Steve

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The results of a British and a different US test vs. 4 previously unscathed vehicles showed that 17 pdr AP, 17 pdr APCBC, and 90mm APCBC managed to cause cracks, spring welds and cause some complete penetrations which in theory they should not have been able to do.<hr></blockquote>

Are you referring to the Isigny and Balleroy firing trial reports? Three test Panthers at Isigny and one at Balleroy.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Jeff,

No clue Lorrin only gave the extract of what he found. Like I said, he would be the man to go to for the straight story. Much of what I do with this stuff is read it, think about it, and then form an opinion based on it and my other stored knowledge. Every day after that the details are forgotten in order to make room for more "useless" information I can easily brush up on stuff when needed, but that takes time. And time I ain't got much of lately. In fact, I am violating my own rules by continuing to post here

My brain is mushing other stuff at the moment other than armor. Right now I can probably tell you how many condoms were issued to a late 1942 Romanian Pionner Squad easier than I could about Panther armor. Unfortunatey (and fortunately) what I do requires me to be a generalist and not a specialist. The armor stuff is quite specialized and, although I do enjoy it and know it is important, I can not eat, breath, and sleep with the stuff at the expense of everything else. If I didn't work that way, who would be making the massive Excel spreadsheet detailing each and every uniform bit that needs to be created for 6 nations and 4 years worth of warfare?

Steve

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[TSword]

All fine and nice.

I can very well understand the limitiations which the CM-engine imposes.

BUT why then lower the Panther to 85 % quality, while knowing that shatter gap is also not modelled in the game ?

This together leads to a very noticeable boost in M4 76's performance against Panther, which in that form never existed. (I don't list the huge load of american tankers (In US elite units like 2nd AD..) and antitank gunners here stating that only with the 90 mm they had a decent chance to knock out a Panther front on..).

They instead could have weighten out the limitations of the engine (Plate uniformity -> flaws, shattergap) and come to a model which would fit reality much closer (Panther almost invincible against frontal plate attack).

There are other cases like the Tiger-mantlet (Tiger I taken out by Cromwells at > 500 m for instance front on...), Panther and KT turretspeeds, optics, always interpreted negative -> lower speed, not better

SPW 251 with a mere ammo load of 40 against 250 of US HT (They may have more maybe, but 6 times..), the M2 ubergun, the german counterpart 20 mm has no rate of fire at all (calculated as cannon with a single shell with laughable power always missing moving troops, only supressing stationed troops..). Generally larger reaction times for german artillery even for unobserved fire..., though both FO's had wire or radio..(More deviation of impact point would be ok for german ari, but reation time..)

It's a pattern recognizable and annoys a lot of people i know playing CM

Of course (thanks god) it's only a game, but with the focus to be as acurate as possible.

Now most of the above i think is possible to correct without disturbing gameplay or anything like that.