Javelin hits top of Abrams, no damage!

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[ChrisND]

Just spit balling here, but could it be the angle of impact?

[Speedy]

I agree to me the angle of the hit would be a major reason for no major penetrative damage.

However with the missile detonating I would expect some damage to optics, antennas and such.

[Stuka]

At least some soiled underwear......

[SgtMuhammed]

You either have a crew with really good luck or a Javelin gunner with really bad luck. This isn't rock-paper-scissors, A does not automatically kill B. I've had BMP's survive tank rounds. Stuff happens.

[MarkEzra]

If you will send the file PLEASE I'd like to look at everything. What needs to be seen are several pics with perpendicular angles and before/after hit report screen shot. As I said earlier I would be glad to do that And would have been glad to start a thread ....perhaps with a little less Absolutist title Otherwise: This pic fails to demonstrate ANY actual verifiable conclusion.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MarkEzra]

You didn't save it. You don't think that "stuff happens" is an adequate answer, and you "guess" it's a bug after all. Do I have that about right?

If you find something you think is buggy may I suggest you follow this course:

1. Stay calm.

2. Save File.

3. Review carefully.

4. Post as a question...( Possible Bug? )

5. Be prepared to provide raw data for those

interested or responsible for improving the

game.

I know this sounds hectoring, and perhaps it is. It is not my intention to do so, nor is it my heart. I hope you'll consider my comments in the spirit they've been given. To wit: Improved discourse equals improved game.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[TheVulture]

Originally posted by Adam1:

lol, no, I just wanted to know what damage that could be expected to do to the tank. It's simply not that complicated.

From that angle, my guess would be 'bugger all'.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

The power of the Javelin is in Top Attack Mode, and for that to work it has to hit the top armor sorta perpendicularly. Obliquely, like in this screen shot, isn't the same thing. Most of the power of the Jav would splash off the top armor. I'm surprised that it didn't take out something like the FLIR, but then again it's tough to say based on one instance.

So... based on this one screenshot, and this one experience, I would have to guess that there isn't anything wrong. But please, everybody, do keep an eye out for stuff like this. If too many people see even oblique hits like that doing no damage then I'd suspect something wrong. Also, if it was a proper Top Attack hit I'd say something was wrong for sure if there was no damage. That should just about always equal at least a mobility kill, even on an Abrams.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, this is a good example of the benefits of having 1:1 graphics. The angle of the armor and the Javelin are exactly what the engine underneath is using to determine results. Same with location, direction, etc. That's why I'm fairly sure of what I said above. If this was a CMx1 abstracted type system the screenshot itself probably wouldn't tell us much. It would, at best, hint at something.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Mishga]

I have noticed that a few vehicles can get there turrets plastered with HE or AP from autocannons and no damage gets done.

The complexity and sensitivity of the gear festooning modern AFV's would suggest a few cracks and splinters, no?

[Battlefront.com]

I don't know how Charles calculates secondary damage. I know it isn't completely random (i.e. roll of the dice) as location of the hit and what not are calculated directly. That's why I'm interested in you guys (oh Hell... and girls too. What's the world coming to! ) keep an eye out for pretty big hits happening without damage.

Mishga, the systems like the FLIR and gunner's thermals are armored. They should be pretty much impervious to fragmentation type hits. Direct hits from something like a 30mm autocannon probably should cause some damage. The only thing that really saves a turret's fun stuff is their fairly small size. Chances are a shot is going to hit straight armor and nothing else.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

They are indeed armored, but the relevant armored doors are wide open in the screenshot, making the optics and electrooptics vulnerable. M1 turret top explosions could blow in or destroy vision blocks,

wreck exposed MGs, take out the radio antenna/digital data links and wipe out the important for long range gunnery wind sensor, among others. In the instance under examination, the CITV should be okay, but the primary gunner's sight is definitely in big trouble.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[SgtMuhammed]

John,

You have that backwards. The blast would head towards the CITV.

In any case, stuff happens in combat. You either accept that or you don't but it is reality. People can believe that if X then Y is always the case or you can accept that US infantrymen did kill a Panther from the front with a lowly bazooka, or that a Panther was killed by a 37mm round, or that 300 guys held off a German armored corps and suffered only 7 KIA. If you want rock/paper/scissors then play warcraft.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[John Kettler]

SgtMuhammed,

Oops! Good catch!

I misread the visual cues and concluded that the primary sights were, British style, in a kind of trench. I see now that the "trench" was in fact the center panel of the turret top front and that my eye was thrown by the fact that the door line is very close to the seam line, creating an optical illusion. With no "trench" present, that, of course, changes everything. Would therefore expect the CITV to be badly knocked about or even blown off, with the primary sight not much better. The Ma Deuce wouldn't fare well, either. Bottom line? Even with no penetration, that M1A2 should take a major hit in combat effectiveness when that Javelin goes off.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

I can say for sure that the projection of splash isn't simulated in exact detail. That's too much work for something which doesn't happen all that often or, when it does, tends to knock out the vehicle anyway. When a point of diminishing returns exists before one line of code is written, explicit simulation is inadvisable.

I'm not even sure it could be reliably simulated anyway, since the splash itself would be largely chaotic (i.e. "random"). There certainly are no resources for us to go to that we could double check the simulated results against. Anybody seen even one Abrams hit by a Javelin ANYWHERE, not to mention an oblique hit to the turret top?

As far as I can remember (this code was written eons ago) the location of the hit is determined exactly, along with all the usual suspects (vector, angle of impact, etc.). The area hit has damage assessed based on the properties of the round/missile hit itself. The systems in that specific area are assessed for damage based on the hit and things like size, robustness, and a few other factors I'm likely forgetting.

What this all means is that the splash damage isn't a roll of the dice, but it it isn't explicitly simulated like a penetrating round or ricochet is. Think of splash as being somewhere inbetween, but leaning more towards directly simulated.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Mishga]

Thanks for the update, Steve.

I know what you mean about splash damage. If it's severe enough to knock out secondary systems chances are the main vehicle is totalled so therefore it's a moot point.

"Oh it seems the MG, the doghouse and the CITV are broke, Sarge"

"Umm that's cos the turret is lying 20 yards that'a'way, Snuffy."

[Battlefront.com]

Adam1,

Yes. As I said above the damage is calculated base on where it hits and what is near it. To get a hit on the tracks the hits would have to be near that area.

Mishga,

I know what you mean about splash damage. If it's severe enough to knock out secondary systems chances are the main vehicle is totalled so therefore it's a moot point.

"Oh it seems the MG, the doghouse and the CITV are broke, Sarge"

"Umm that's cos the turret is lying 20 yards that'a'way, Snuffy."

Heh... exactly. Now, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be damage without the turret being blown off, and that should be the case in the game now. I know I've seen my fair share of "yellow lined" and "red lined" systems after shrugging off a hit or two. Then I say things like "gee, why didn't my Stryker fire smoke? Oh... damn... smoke dischargers are bunged up".

Steve