Other Means Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 CM doesn't model degradation of armour, which I think would be an issue. But given there's no data on it, what are they supposed to base it on? I think given the amount of incoming on the M1 you'd eventually get something through. Even 2 shots on the same area. A weld would pop *somewhere*. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 I don't think you can really wear armor down like that without a LOT more hits (I'm guessing 50 to 70 on the same panel). While maybe you could some how put one round exactly where the armor had been hit before, I think any degradation of armor from multiple spread out hits would be so minimal as to possibly not be worth modeling. Also keep in mind it's a mix of layers of ceramics and metals with a DU mesh (on the front anyway), so I don't think it would degrade in quiet the same way your thinking of. As it's layered I'm sure that how deep the hits are going would also make a big difference. That's my unqualified $.02. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Ryujin, Beg to differ. The M1 in your vid doesn't rock much because it's firing perpendicular to the hull axis, eliminating most of the pitch impulse generated when the tank fires forward or aft. The difference is marked, as seen here and from very close. MikeyD, Was unaware Kubinka had a Merkava, but I am aware of the HOT firing Syrian Gazelles. http://s188567700.online.de/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=207&Itemid=47 Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Ryujin, For comparison, here's a Challenger 2. Sorry about the cheesy soundtrack! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX3GO8NWJMI&feature=related Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrspawn Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 CM doesn't model degradation of armour, which I think would be an issue. But given there's no data on it, what are they supposed to base it on? I think given the amount of incoming on the M1 you'd eventually get something through. Even 2 shots on the same area. A weld would pop *somewhere*. It SORT OF models degradation because the more rounds you take the more systems will be damaged, which i think accurately represents what would happen if you got hit by 50+ HEAT rounds like the OP did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 I don't think you can really wear armor down like that without a LOT more hits (I'm guessing 50 to 70 on the same panel). While maybe you could some how put one round exactly where the armor had been hit before, I think any degradation of armor from multiple spread out hits would be so minimal as to possibly not be worth modeling. Also keep in mind it's a mix of layers of ceramics and metals with a DU mesh (on the front anyway), so I don't think it would degrade in quiet the same way your thinking of. As it's layered I'm sure that how deep the hits are going would also make a big difference. That's my unqualified $.02. We don't know is the answer, which, I guess, is why it's not modelled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Ryujin, Beg to differ. The M1 in your vid doesn't rock much because it's firing perpendicular to the hull axis, eliminating most of the pitch impulse generated when the tank fires forward or aft. The difference is marked, as seen here and from very close. I'm not saying it's rock steady when firing, but even in those videos it's not rocking nearly as much as it does in CMSF. In CMSF the M1 completely rolls back on it's suspension and then forward. In the videos it recoils back and up only a couple degrees. Here's a real good video, compare it to the CMSF tanks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-25BjbKm-8&feature=related It barely shifts at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 The M1 in your vid doesn't rock much because it's firing perpendicular to the hull axis, eliminating most of the pitch impulse generated when the tank fires forward or aft. The moment of inertia about the longitudinal axis of the tank is much lower than the one about the transverse axis. Thus, a tank firing to the side should rock much more than a tank firing to the front. (This "analysis" does not take into account the effects of the suspension, but, I guess, is still correct.) Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Thomm, Were there no suspension, with the hull simply resting on the ground, then I might agree, but there is a suspension, and as a trailing arm design, it's specifically designed to move on the tank's longitudinal axis in response to variations in the ground. Firing perpendicularly to that axis simply doesn't generate the same suspension loads and associated movements. Why? Most of the recoil force remaining after the recoil recuperators function is applied laterally to the suspension from the firing side, and is dissipated as friction from all the ground contact of both tracks. Hull movement on the roll axis, if you would, though, is a second order effect at best. In the case of a battleship broadside, the warship neither displaces sideways to any degree, nor does it roll, as detailed in this excellent set of analyses. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Most of the recoil force remaining after the recoil recuperators function is applied laterally to the suspension from the firing side, and is dissipated as friction from all the ground contact of both tracks. Hull movement on the roll axis, if you would, though, is a second order effect at best. This is true for both modes of movement, no? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 Thomm, No. As I previously explained, the suspension is designed to work along the longitudinal axis of the tank, and that is precisely the direction the trailing arm suspension travels. With the turret firing in broadside mode, the suspension is all but rigid in the face of the lateral recoil forces being applied, leaving only relatively minor roll forces to act on the far side trailing arms, since the near side ones would be somewhat unloaded by the recoil. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 I posted previously, about the Cadillac M1's and Challengers and to an extent the M2's and Warriors as they sway about the battlefield. I don't think it is the amount of rocking but its speed, which gives the impression they weigh very little or have pimped their suspension! Perhaps if BF could just slow down the animation, Panthers and Tigers are going to look silly if they react the same way. It is a minor point, but it does get in the way from the immersive experience that BF seek to create. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 John, The lateral forces do not compress the suspension, the vertical reaction forces, which are a result of the moment induced by the recoil forces acting off-center, do. And the videos clearly show a vertical movement of the suspension arms, which basically is about the same regardless of which direction the gun is fired. Actually, I would expect the suspension to act stiffer with regard to a moment about the longitudinal axis (all springs of one side being compressed simultaneously), which would explain the fact that firing perpendicularly to the hull axis causes less movement (contradicting my previous post, unfortunately.) Best regards, Thomm 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.