Panther has 80mm hull front? Right...

[Redwolf]

Uh, guys? Giving the Panther a 80mm hull front?

I know you didn't want to go through the trouble of implementing a armor penetration model taking angles into account at runtime, but the actual upper hull plate was 80mm at 55 degrees. If you convert that by LOS thickness to get a single thickness for an angleless penetration model you arrive at 140mm. Even the thinner plate on the lower hull arrives at 105mm.

Right now you treat the vertical 80mm plate on the StuG the same way that you treat the 55 degree plate on the Panther.

[chanss]

Same thing with the T-34, it says it has 45mm armor, but with sloping you will get almost double effect of armor versus Armor piercing Ammo. Maybe they take into account in the game engine, who knows?.....have not read anything about here.

Sloping armor is not that effective versus exploding ordnance though, is it?

[Drawde79]

I thought the game engine did take armour slopes/angles into account when calculating shot penetration? I'm sure I remember reading this in previews and/or and developer posts in the past.

Maybe the armour slope values just aren't shown in the encyclopedia?

[dizee]

i seriously doubt that they have left this feature out. from my experience with the game, i played the demo a bit and bought the game yesterday via dl, angled armor effect is in.

to this point, im realy not sure how much of the outcome of shootouts, is determined by advanced calculations, or by pure random factors.

ive seen some great "shoot ups" of tanks already, which seemed very realistic. in some instances more realistic than cm.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Unless I'm grossly misinformed (and I don't think I am) armour slopes are in the calculations. However... the 55 degree angle is inherently bogus as a tool for calculating how much armour protection you are getting. Great for armour aficionados but not much use in real terms.

Let me explain. The shooter may be higher then horizontal, making the angle less. tHe hull may be pointing downwards. It could be, by some freakish curvature that the shooter gets a straight angle shot at your frontal glacis. *POOF* Goes your 55 degree bow armour. You've always got 80mm armour, what angle of protection you are getting depends on how the shot comes in.

So yes, typically you'll get that 55 degrees, but it's not some magical bonus that you'll always be getting. The penetration is just like it is in CM(in many ways even better), it's just how the numbers are presented that differ.

[dizee]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

Unless I'm grossly misinformed (and I don't think I am) armour slopes are in the calculations. However... the 55 degree angle is inherently bogus as a tool for calculating how much armour protection you are getting. Great for armour aficionados but not much use in real terms.

Let me explain. The shooter may be higher then horizontal, making the angle less. tHe hull may be pointing downwards. It could be, by some freakish curvature that the shooter gets a straight angle shot at your frontal glacis. *POOF* Goes your 55 degree bow armour. You've always got 80mm armour, what angle of protection you are getting depends on how the shot comes in.

So yes, typically you'll get that 55 degrees, but it's not some magical bonus that you'll always be getting. The penetration is just like it is in CM(in many ways even better), it's just how the numbers are presented that differ.

exactly. i had an instance, where my panther's frontal upper hull was penetrated by a t34/85 at around 700m. i was like "hmmm wth", but after taking a close look, i saw that my panther was positioned on a slope, driving downhill, while the shooter had a slightly higher position. it looked like as if much of the angle adv got negated by a crap pos.

might also just have been a random calculation. we kinda need more info on this imho, to appreciate (or bash ;P) the game more.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by chanss:

Same thing with the T-34, it says it has 45mm armor, but with sloping you will get almost double effect of armor versus Armor piercing Ammo. Maybe they take into account in the game engine, who knows?.....have not read anything about here.

Sloping armor is not that effective versus exploding ordnance though, is it?

the mathematical increase in thickness is still the same.

it is the desired aditional sloping effects that go beyond the mere mathematical / geometrical armor increase, that do not apply to HEAT/shaped charges as much. i.e., sloped armor behaves "stronger" vs kinetic energy penetrators as would be expected based merely on the geometrical increase of armor thickness.

a very strong sloping however can lead to the shaped charge not detonating at all, in extreme cases and depending on the shaped charge fuze construction design. this is akin to the likeliness of ricochets re. kinetic energy penetrators, but quite less pronounced than the latter.

[ May 01, 2007, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

Unless I'm grossly misinformed (and I don't think I am) armour slopes are in the calculations. However... the 55 degree angle is inherently bogus as a tool for calculating how much armour protection you are getting. Great for armour aficionados but not much use in real terms.

Let me explain. The shooter may be higher then horizontal, making the angle less. tHe hull may be pointing downwards. It could be, by some freakish curvature that the shooter gets a straight angle shot at your frontal glacis. *POOF* Goes your 55 degree bow armour. You've always got 80mm armour, what angle of protection you are getting depends on how the shot comes in.

So yes, typically you'll get that 55 degrees, but it's not some magical bonus that you'll always be getting. The penetration is just like it is in CM(in many ways even better), it's just how the numbers are presented that differ.

however the target panther might just as likely, or rather more likely!! (since tanks tend to be hull down and hence omn the reverse slope), that the hull is pointing upwards and hence the sloping is even higher...

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Elmar,

Your "reasoning" is rather poor (I might say "it's crap" but hey I' m polite). Armor angle *is* one of the main things to take into account to make something even remotely realistic.

55 degree angle is indeed *better* than just more armor in a majority of cases due to the increase in ricochets it gave. So at least the game should translate everything to vertical penetration (considering weapon penetration is evaluated the same) if no real ballistic model is used.

If you don't factor that it's purely stupid (or worse, misleading..) to bother detailing armor thicknesses at all, we might as well have a binary "good/bad" instead.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You misunderstand me, Pascal.

It IS factored in. It's just not telling you the default 55 degrees (for the Panther) because that doesn't take into account any other angles that may be at work due to the positioning of the shooter and the shot. That default 55 degrees is interesting for number crunchers but it doesn't tell you anything about the angle being shot at.

Let me illustrate:

That blue line is a shell for which the Panther lovers will get warm fuzzy feelings. The gun that fires the red shot (from an obnoxiously large hill) however renders that 55 degrees completely meaningless info.

Therefore the guys at 1C probably decided that providing that 55 degrees would be cluttering the UI without adding much practical real world info.

[Kharnvor]

Elmar's reasoning is perfectly sound.

If the gun platform and the target with the sloped armor are not at the exact same elevation, the effective armor slope will be more or less. Even with increasing distance, the shell will have to be lobbed a little bit more, so it will be at a slightly shallower angle to the armor slope.

55 degrees is better, unless the direction of shot is such that the projectile is hitting the armor facing at anything less than 55 degrees, for example perfectly perpendicular.

Not very likely to happen to that extreme, but at 1000m plus a little elevation, suddenly shots are hitting that 55 degree slope closer to 40 degrees. Still better than most, but not by as much.

Edit - Just like Elmar said.

[wokelly]

Well this may be a bit off topic, but I guess I will post it since we are talking about the panthers armor:

Note: This is an informational posting...not some attempt to get armor quality issues or degradation of armor during a production run into the game.

A question was raised some time ago concerning the degradation of german armor quality over time. A few even went so far as to say that this degradation was an assumption on the part of some, or presumed, and wasn't based on anything factual.

That is not in fact the case. The US - along with the UK - conducted periodic metallurgical testing of German, Italian and Japanese armor coupons throughout the war. A section of armor plate was flame cut from a captured vehicle (always a non-burner or flamer as this affects the testing), and in the case of the US was shipped to Watertown Arsenal or other US testing facilities.

For those interested in this question you can use the DTIC document library to order the various testing reports. If you want Tiger info try WAL 710/542 - Armor and Welding on a Pz VI Tiger Tank...for example...or WAL 710/608 - Armor and welding on a Pz-IV etc. All these documents are now public domain, and thus its easy to follow the metallurgical trail so to speak.

Over the course of 1944, with most fingers pointing to early in same, the Germans changed the alloy composition of their armor. Prior to this time the usual Cr-Mo type steel was used. All testing showed the plates to be sufficiently cross-rolled and both fracture and Charpy tests showed good fracture and shatter characteristics.

By the beginning of 1944 things changed. Mo was dropped and the plates started their trend to .5% carbon, 2% Chromium, and .14% Vanadium composition. Obviously Mo was running short or had disappeared, and a substitute had to be found that was generally acceptable...and that substitute was the move to vanadium.

This had a couple of effects...first high carbon is generally counter-indicated when it comes to obtaining good welds and shock/shatter performance. The deterioration of weld performance was witnessed in combat by both the German tank crews themselves and the Allies, and became a consistent feature in German armor samples from that point on. Good RHA in the US or UK typically is no higher than .3% carbon at worst. Poor quality steel such as was found in some of the Italian AFV ran as high as .5-.6% carbon, and that of course yields generally horrid shatter performance. Instead of clean penetrations typical of 'good' armor you see large tears in a plate with considerably more material/spall forced into the AFV.

Another issue with this composition is quench cracking...if you dont quench the plate properly in manufacturing you can generate cracks that are inside the plate and invisible to the naked eye. Armor with interior cracking or non-uniform composition is obviously a bad thing when you hit it with a high velocity projectile.

Then, and this is especially true of plates greater than 2" in thickness, the same mad rush to satisfy quantity (thus screwing up your quench cycle) can also affect the quality of the plate. In case of a vandium based steel, you will use less alloy to make it for a given weight, but between that and improper quenching you end up with steel of inferior hardness.

Finally we top all that off with improper tempering...and you actually induce brittleness into what is already a faulty plate. The faulty tempering occured in one of two fashions...either the plate was allowed to cool too slowly or the temperature ranged in the 400-1000 degree F range and didn't exceed that. (Ideally you want 1200-1700 degrees followed by an appropriate quench) A further side effect of this is variable hardness in a plate of a given thickness...and again this was noted in the Panther's armor.

The Panther glacis armor sampled in 1944 demonstrated all these characteristics, and more. Its not that the design of the plate or the weld was bad, it was simply that Germany was out of alloys required for good steel production, and the substitute process adopted was inferior in every way to the material it was replacing. When you throw bad manufacturing process on top of that (improper quench and temper) in hurry to get the vehicle out the door, you get what was seen in combat...brittle and shatter failures in plates which shouldnt have those issues.

When we come off the glacis and to the side armor with much less thickness, its all a formula for outright disaster. In the case of some Panther Chassis, 75mm Sherman HE not only cracked the armor, but literally blew sections of armor plate off the tank...and obviously that should never happen on anyone's vehicle if the armor is up to snuff. I'm sure US officials were surprised to see such a large drop in quality...and they certainly noted in their reports that they believed Germany was (materially) approaching the end of the line.

Other nations had their issues as well...early war matildas for one had issues with castings with regards to both metallurgy and process control early on. These were often a function of a single manufacturer and the controls in place at that location.

So - there you have it. The reduction in armor quality was a product of nothing more than facts. A lack of appropriate alloys and a lack of attention in materials manufacturing...all of which made for brittle and shatter prone tanks and welds.

Could Germany have avoided this fate? Yes...if they had more invested in quality control checks, re-quenching and re-tempering the armor would have eliminated some of these faults. That too was demonstrated in US testing. The barbarians were already at the gates though...and I am quite sure some of the T-34s rushed off the line early on would have similar problems. Heck some of the JS series tanks late in the war had severe quality issues...something which should have never happened given the strategic situation by that time.

I hope this puts this particular myth to rest once and for all. Anyone interested in a late war panther sampling can order ADA 954940 or 954952 for ord. dept comments as well as the full metallurgical workups of a typical late model panther. No use taking my word for it...let the spectroscopy and microscopes in the reports do the speaking...

sources used:

- WAL 710/542 - Armor and Welding on a Pz VI Tiger Tank

- WAL 710/608 - Armor and welding on a Pz-IV etc.

- ADA 954952 - Metallurgical examination of 3.25" thick armor from a german Panther tank

- ADA 954940 - Metallurigical exmaination of armor and weleded joints from the side of a panther tank.

[Redwolf]

Many wargames do not calculate armor angles at shot time. Instead, they calculate one "effective thickness" or "LOS thickness" which they just take from the thickness and the angle, computing what the thickness is if you follow line of sight. It assumes that the shooter and target are always at the same height, of course. Example: 80mm at 55 degrees. If you convert that by LOS thickness to get a single thickness for an angleless penetration model you arrive at 140mm.

Now, this calculation is only close to true for HEAT ammo and for modern SABOT penetrators. Against WW2 solid shot and hard core ammo high angles were even more effective than the simple "LOS thickness" would imply. That 80mm at 55 degrees is even toucher than 140mm at 0 angles for almost all WW2 ammunition. But let's leave that aside, this model would be good enough for the intended audience of ToW.

I am sure that ToW does not do angle computation at shot time, so it would have to do the "LOS thickness" calculation and put it into the basic unit data.

But apparently they didn't do that, ending up with a Panther front that is the same as a StuG front.

[dizee]

is this true? can anyone confirm this, coz i had engagements where my panther withstood 85mm punishments and even deflected 122mm.

[Bioseed]

Everything I have seen in this games tells me it does have slope effects. I have even seen a side angle on tank hull increase protection... Are we playing the same game Redwolf?

[dizee]

same here. had glancing side hits on my pIII in the 'steel torrent' mission from 85mm. this might be the result of some sick random formular too, so i kinda want to know this. if angles arent in, the avf vs afv thing, and therefor the whole game, would be void.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Bioseed:

Everything I have seen in this games tells me it does have slope effects. I have even seen a side angle on tank hull increase protection... Are we playing the same game Redwolf?

It's a question, not a statement.

To my memory, Madmatt did say during the pre-release time that angle effects are not calculated at shot time. And the game doesn't display an angle, I see no difference in the unit spec between the front hull of the Panther and a StuG. Plus I see people complain their Panthers die easily.

I'd like to have an official word on this.

[Bioseed]

Official word would be nice, but until then I am going to trust the results I have seen in game, and so far my Panthers have been much more survivable than any StuG.

[ChrisND]

Guys, don't worry about what Redwolf and Pascal are saying, we hav already been through this in another thread and all of the information is legit... if they put all of the factors into those user interfaces, the game would look more like a super complicated spreadsheet. Let's let the official word work on improving the game.

[Madmatt]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

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

Everything I have seen in this games tells me it does have slope effects. I have even seen a side angle on tank hull increase protection... Are we playing the same game Redwolf?

It's a question, not a statement.

To my memory, Madmatt did say during the pre-release time that angle effects are not calculated at shot time. And the game doesn't display an angle, I see no difference in the unit spec between the front hull of the Panther and a StuG. Plus I see people complain their Panthers die easily.

I'd like to have an official word on this. </font>

[Bioseed]

I just took another look at the TOW manual, and it seems to give an official word on the matter:

Damage Calculations

The following factors are taken into consideration in the game whenever

damage is calculated for various types of objects: ballistics (every

weapon in the game has its own ballistics parameters), hit angles, armor at

the hit location, shell inertia, high-explosive effect, detonation, blast pressure

wave, secondary effects, ricochets, anti-HEAT screens, ammo detonation,

and inflammation. The following systems may be disabled:

o Chassis:

o Transmission;

o Engine;

o Wheel or tracks

o Turret;

o Guns;

o Machine guns;

o Crew

[Kharnvor]

I've seen shots where straight-on penetration outmatched armor by at least 2:1, but since the shot was at a 60 degree angle, it deflected. Impact angle is factored in.

[BFawlty]

Originally posted by Bioseed:

I just took another look at the TOW manual, and it seems to give an official word on the matter:

Damage Calculations

The following factors are taken into consideration in the game whenever

damage is calculated for various types of objects: ballistics (every

weapon in the game has its own ballistics parameters), hit angles, armor at

the hit location, shell inertia, high-explosive effect, detonation, blast pressure

wave, secondary effects, ricochets, anti-HEAT screens, ammo detonation,

and inflammation. The following systems may be disabled:

o Chassis:

o Transmission;

o Engine;

o Wheel or tracks

o Turret;

o Guns;

o Machine guns;

o Crew

I've only played the demo, but knowing the work that the folks at 1C put into damage and ballistics, etc. on IL2 I would think that they did it up pretty good here also. And from what Bioseed has posted this seems to be the case. Is it enough for the hard core amongst us...I have no idea! :cool:

BF

[Freeboy]

the angle of attack, pennetration and slope do seem to be in, I would like 1c to coment though

[Redwolf]

OK.

The above information indicates that the positional angle (from relative vehicle positions) is taken into account.

It would be great to have confirmation on whether the angle at which the plate is mounted is also taken into account.

In CMx1 these were used for vertical (position of shooter [1a] and target in the xy plane [1b]) and horizontal (mounting angle of the armor plate[2a] +- horizontal position difference[2b] - impact angle change from trajectory[2c]). From what I can see ToW seems to only have 1a and 1b and maybe 2b, but not 2a.

Bioseed, even if the hull angle is not taken into account, a Panther is tougher because the turret front is thicker.