Armour penetration and repeated hits.

[roqf77]

im sorry if this question has already been answered, but will cmx2 model cracking effects on armour plates? just curious because it would be cool!

[Zalgiris 1410]

I agree that if cracking armour could be depicted it would be cool and a bit more realistic but if it can't be included in CMx2 I must say that I would like to see some sort of an account of damage done to AFV especially in terms of points accumilation that are also attributed to the firing units who inflicked the damage. At lest for AFV with damaged guns and turretts.

[Ardem]

forget the cracking plates, I rather see location damage and dependant of the placement of shell round, depends on who dies, the loader, radio operator, driver. ATM if one person dies its always the tank commander.

If the driver is killed I like to 'see' (figurtively) the tank immboile for a few rounds until the radio operator moves into the drivers spot, and then see no radio contact between tank to tank.

[Gpig]

I've read a lot about tank crews under fire, this summer. And one of the interesting things for me to read was that many crews would abandon a tank as soon as it was penetrated - even if it was still operable.

Then, if they could, they'd remount when safe to do so.

That type of behaviour might not fly for most gamers of CM, however. (What!? My crew bailed after one lousy penetration?!?)

What do you guys think?

Gpig

[JonS]

I think it's probably right up there with JasonCs suggestion about malingerers.

[Ardem]

It funny you read both angles bailing on first penetration and where a whole crew dies except the driver, who gets a medal for driving it off the battlefield.

Also in a lot of german tanks it seems like the radio guy copped it the most, and it wasn't till after the battle they noticed the radio guy dead.

I think smoke in a tank more so then peneration determined if they bailed. I think the thought of a fire got the crew out rather then the penetration itself.

I just finished reading Armour Battle by the Waffen SS, and it really depends on the tank crew if they bailed or not, some I thought took the slightest of damage and bailed, others took enormous damage and still tried to keep on fighting.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ardem:

It funny you read both angles bailing on first penetration and where a whole crew dies except the driver, who gets a medal for driving it off the battlefield.

Also in a lot of german tanks it seems like the radio guy copped it the most, and it wasn't till after the battle they noticed the radio guy dead.

I think smoke in a tank more so then peneration determined if they bailed. I think the thought of a fire got the crew out rather then the penetration itself.

I just finished reading Armour Battle by the Waffen SS, and it really depends on the tank crew if they bailed or not, some I thought took the slightest of damage and bailed, others took enormous damage and still tried to keep on fighting.

I've read at least one case of a US Sherman firing a smoke round at a Panther to try and fool it that his engine was on fire. Worked. Sometimes external stowage would catch on fire causing a bailout too.

Would be good to see individual crew positions and effects of losses modelled, hopefully they do that.

[dalem]

When I read stories and anecdotes of WWII armor I am struck by how often tanks and halftracks are simply "driven off" by fire, sometimes even smallarms fire.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

This may be why we need to get rid of the armour penetration messages - if I see an enemy Panther crew bailing out, I shouldn't have the knowledge that he is disabled - I should have to guess whether or not to pump more rounds into the hulk or not. I know this is partially simulated now, but I still think the player has too much info at his disposal, even with Extreme FOW on, with regards to enemy armour status.

If we get the ability to set up wrecks on board, there should be the question of whether or not they are wrecks or not, even when encountered for the first time.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

If we get the ability to set up wrecks on board, there should be the question of whether or not they are wrecks or not, even when encountered for the first time.

This would be excellent! Many times advancing troops came upon an AFV and fired on it only to find it was abandoned, etc. Anything that causes confusion or makes for incorrect intel is great, imo.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

If we get the ability to set up wrecks on board, there should be the question of whether or not they are wrecks or not, even when encountered for the first time.

This would be excellent! Many times advancing troops came upon an AFV and fired on it only to find it was abandoned, etc. Anything that causes confusion or makes for incorrect intel is great, imo. </font>

[roqf77]

and plate cracking dont forget the plate cracking!!!!. its a major point!

[YankeeDog]

How much did plate cracking really happen?

I only hear it talked about much with late-war Panthers, which CMX1 already kind of models with the "frequent flaws in front glacis" thing. . .

But maybe there's other AFVs that also had this problem? I'm kind of out of my element here, but IIRC plate cracking happens when the armor is too brittle. . . *sigh* where's Rexford when you need him??

If plate cracking is an event limited to certain AFV in certain time periods, it might be completely irrelevant to the initial CMXs release (or not. . .).

[roqf77]

i have a read a few fireing tests. 17 pounder apcbc v panther rarely penetrated its glacias at any range but second hits usualy penetrated up to 800 yards. even with hits outside of the cracking.

in this test us 90mm ap caused 15 inches of cracking at 1500 metres. so its not uber major but it is kinda important for gun v tan armour balance issues. plus there is an element of realism.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

In fact roqf77 has a very good point.

The first thing to say is that CM has “by far” the most advanced armour penetration modelling out there. I mind blowing piece of work by Charles supported by Rexford and others. However…. when it comes to armour cracking, and therefore weakening, roqf77 has a very valid point.

Face-hardened armour works by shattering the penetrating projectile due to the extreme hardness of the front 5mm odd of armour plate. But in shattering the penetrating projectile, the face-hardening also tends to self destruct, i.e. cracks up. If the same area of armour is then struck a second or third time there is a greatly increased risk of catastrophic failure. In CMX1 this is modelled by there being a small risk of catastrophic failure with every strike against face-hardened armour. What this does not model or account for is the effect of weakened armour on veteran or frequently struck face-hardened plate.

In the real world a German MarkIII with 50mm face-hardened amour that had been frequently struck by Commonwealth 2 pounder or Soviet 45mm anti-tank rounds would be living very dangerously. A Soviet 45mm anti-tank gun pouring rounds at a face-hardened German tank would have a far higher chance of a kill than currently modelling in CMX1.

This is the reason why if you dig around in the archives at Bovington Tank Museum you will find that the contemporary tank warfare experts had a very low opinion of face-hardened armour. Even in the early days of the war in the North Africa they considered the Germans foolish to use face-hardened plate.

I am hoping that the damage model in CMX2 will record the location of individual strikes, thus be able to model not just the advantages of face-hardened armour, but also its drawbacks if struck frequently. Each AFV will have its own memory.

All good fun ,

All the best,

Kip.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

How much did plate cracking really happen?

I only hear it talked about much with late-war Panthers, which CMX1 already kind of models with the "frequent flaws in front glacis" thing. . .

But maybe there's other AFVs that also had this problem? I'm kind of out of my element here, but IIRC plate cracking happens when the armor is too brittle. . . *sigh* where's Rexford when you need him??

If plate cracking is an event limited to certain AFV in certain time periods, it might be completely irrelevant to the initial CMXs release (or not. . .).

I have a photo in my "Alamein" book (Steven Bungay) which shows an Italian SP Gun in the desert with a hole the size of a dinner plate. The side hull plate has cracked like ceramic. Apparently Italian tanks were notorious for this poor armour quality.

[YankeeDog]

Thanks, guys. Good info.

The stuff in re: FH plate especially makes a lot of sense, and may be another piece of the puzzle as to why certain German AFVs, like the StuGs, seem to be nearly impenetrable by contemporary Soviet weaponry, when RL evidence suggests that this was not the case.

Playing CMx1, it seems like FH plate is the ideal armor, and it seems illogical that even the Germans were leaving the idea by the end of the war.

The oft-debated T-34/76 vs. StuG matchup would be very different in CM if the "weak point" hit % for a given facing increased by, say 1-2% for every substantial hit the Stug took on that facing. . .

[flamingknives]

Speaking of ceramics, cumulative damage would be vital for any game covering modern warfare.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Thanks, guys. Good info.

The stuff in re: FH plate especially makes a lot of sense, and may be another piece of the puzzle as to why certain German AFVs, like the StuGs, seem to be nearly impenetrable by contemporary Soviet weaponry, when RL evidence suggests that this was not the case.

Playing CMx1, it seems like FH plate is the ideal armor, and it seems illogical that even the Germans were leaving the idea by the end of the war.

The oft-debated T-34/76 vs. StuG matchup would be very different in CM if the "weak point" hit % for a given facing increased by, say 1-2% for every substantial hit the Stug took on that facing. . .

Yes, I remember reading something (somewhere) about the StuG battalions pulling back their SPGs for repair after they had received several hits. there had been no armour penetrations but the armour damage from the big Russian shells meant they were out of commission untiul repairs were complete.

[Gpig]

Oh no, does this mean our tanks will have "health bars" now?

*gasp*

[Guest Mike]

It looks like a situation where something like helth bars might actually be accurate - gasp, horror!

Just a note on someone's comment that the tank commander always gets killed - that isn't so - it's jsut that he has to fill in the now vacant crew position!!

However IRL that would require teh injured/dead crewman to be removed first - somethign that doesn't happen right now.

Tanks in CM will often be abandoned after a single penetration if there's been a casualty inflicted, even if they are not KO'ed.

[dalem]

Health bars?

Unless he dismounts, would a TC even know what condition his armor was in?

-dale

[JonS]

Originally posted by dalem:

Unless he dismounts, would a TC even know what condition his armor was in?

The cracks, bulges, and patches of glowing metal on the inside might give him a few hints

[stoat]

Originally posted by Mike:

Tanks in CM will often be abandoned after a single penetration if there's been a casualty inflicted, even if they are not KO'ed.

In CMx2 will we see undermanned tanks? I don't mean just losing a crewman in battle, but starting out in a Sherman with four crewmen, for example.

I have read several accounts of actions on the Western Front, especially after the Bulge, where due to a lack of replacement crewmen, tanks went into action with four, sometimes only three, men.

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

Unless he dismounts, would a TC even know what condition his armor was in?

The cracks, bulges, and patches of glowing metal on the inside might give him a few hints </font>