akd Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 So on average it appears we can expect about 1/3 of all hits on the Tiger front to be on the UFH weak point. The only weak points on the front of the Tiger that I know of are the driver slit and the hull MG. To my non-groggy mind, 1/3 of frontal hits striking those two small areas seems... excessive. I'm curious what the experts think. This assumes that all shots are distributed over the entire frontal area of the tank. I don't think they would be in the given circumstance. AI aims for center of mass of the exposed target and dispersion for the 75mm at 500m is not high (although skill may also play a role), so a majority of shots should be landing in an area much smaller than the entire frontal aspect of a Tiger. Both weak points may be in this area, and rotating the tank to an offset angle may be placing one of the weak points more in line with the axis between the gun and the Tiger's center of mass, increasing the chance of the weak point being struck, particularly with multiple shots since aim improves shot to shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm_stanley Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 This makes me want to finally read Otto Carius' Tigers in the Mud.. been wanting to do that for a few years now and just never got the chance.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClarkWGriswold Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 but one thing that may be affecting the results CMx2 does model degradation of armor from progressive hits in the same areaI've never seen anything that suggests BFC is modeling armor degradation. Do you have a source you can cite? Not saying you are incorrect, I just hadn't ever heard this was modeled and would love a confirmation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Damned if I remember... IIRC, this was brought up back around the time CMSF came out (and I'm not just talking about detonating ERA tiles here). I assume the feature would still be in CMBN if it's in CMSF since there would be no reason to take it out... Did a quick search of the CMSF forum and couldn't find the reference, tho. It's possible I'm wrong and confabulating. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 This assumes that all shots are distributed over the entire frontal area of the tank. I don't think they would be in the given circumstance. AI aims for center of mass of the exposed target and dispersion for the 75mm at 500m is not high (although skill may also play a role), so a majority of shots should be landing in an area much smaller than the entire frontal aspect of a Tiger. Both weak points may be in this area, and rotating the tank to an offset angle may be placing one of the weak points more in line with the axis between the gun and the Tiger's center of mass, increasing the chance of the weak point being struck, particularly with multiple shots since aim improves shot to shot. This was my working theory as well, and my primary motivation for repeating the test on the Panther. The Panther should, AFAIK, have the same weak points near the center of the hull/center of mass as the Tiger. Certainly it has a hull MG mount. It also has a drivers slit, although it can be covered on both vehicles. In addition it has the mantlet shot trap. But the fact that there is such a huge discrepancy in results -- 1/3 of all hits on weak points vs. 0 -- suggests the center of mass theory doesn't explain what we are seeing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 This was my working theory as well, and my primary motivation for repeating the test on the Panther. The Panther should, AFAIK, have the same weak points near the center of the hull/center of mass as the Tiger. Certainly it has a hull MG mount. It also has a drivers slit, although it can be covered on both vehicles. In addition it has the mantlet shot trap. But the fact that there is such a huge discrepancy in results -- 1/3 of all hits on weak points vs. 0 -- suggests the center of mass theory doesn't explain what we are seeing. Something odd about the modeling of the tiger's frontal armor, maybe the 6cm plate is being calculated at an incorrect striking angle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm_stanley Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I learned something on this thread.. thanks to all.. Panthers are better in the game.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I am going to bump this thread until Battlefront "Steve" would like to comment. Come on, something is not right with the Tiger at the moment, just admit it and say it is going to get fixed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Bump, Fine , ignore the issue these guys found. but until you have a better way to submit possible game issues, this tread is going to stay here. I just want to know what they discovered, because something is not right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Bump, Fine , ignore the issue these guys found. but until you have a better way to submit possible game issues, this tread is going to stay here. I just want to know what they discovered, because something is not right. Take it easy mate, I think you'll find BFC have put a butt load of work into this sort of stuff and refine their modelling all the time, no real need for their direct comment on what we say here. Problem is AT ballistics is a hugely nebulous concept with all sorts of odd things happening. BFC have to work out a useful algorithm for all that which is never easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Yeah, sorry... I keep meaning to check into this one but it seems whenever I see it I don't get around to actually responding. I've asked Charles for some thoughts. Roughly, though, people have to keep in mind that by summer of 1944 the Tiger was not the über kitty it once was. The Panther beats it both in terms of frontal defense and offensive penetration capacity. The Tiger's strength remains in being able to stand off at great distances and both defeat hits and deal out accurate fire. The closer it gets to an enemy tank (especially something like a Firefly or M10), the more it loses it's advantage. There's a reason why Tiger 1s were out of production by this time More later when I have some info. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Bump, Fine , ignore the issue these guys found. but until you have a better way to submit possible game issues, this tread is going to stay here. I just want to know what they discovered, because something is not right. Keep in mind that "something is not right" often turns out to be a player misconception or incomplete understanding of what he's seeing. That MIGHT not be the case here, but it should always be kept in mind since it's a reasonable possibility. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Thanks for jiggling Charles's jar for us, Steve. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm_stanley Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Who is Charles? And is he in charge? *that joke may be over some young peoples heads... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 bye the way thx for the response of the battlefront dev. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 just want to note that during my other testing (as stated in the forum entry: "Optics damage only reffering to commanders optics ?") i`ve noticed that 75mm sherman hitting the tiger at 1000m distance caused most of the times armor spalling and in one case even partial penetration when hitting the "upper hull front"... while hits to the "frontal superstructure" and " lower hull front" were all deflected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Two things: Could "Upper Front Hull" be a badly worded reference to the TOP of the hull. In other words, a deflection of a round from somewhere else down onto the thin top armor? Just a thought. Secondly, there are two Tigers modelled in the game, the second (late) specifically refers to degraded armor in production, but does not refer to inferior armor at ONE specific location. Have you tried both models of tiger in the test? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted June 12, 2011 Author Share Posted June 12, 2011 yep tried both... most of the time the tiger mid but they had both the same flaw with the "upper frontal hull". at the the panther tank hits to the "upper frontal hull" are reffering to hits to the frontal glacis plate so i would not think that "upper frontal hull" is a term for "top hull" at the tiger. also i have had hits at other vehicles during the campaign where "top hull" hits were explicitly named like that and not "upper frontal hull" hits. also vanir has posted a test some pages ago just look it up: around 1/3 of all hits to the tiger (directly facing the enemy) were "upper frontal hull" hits so it seems not really possible that 1/3 of all hits fired to a tigers armor (without elevation of the tanks) are penetrating the "top hull"... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Yeah, sorry... I keep meaning to check into this one but it seems whenever I see it I don't get around to actually responding. I've asked Charles for some thoughts. Roughly, though, people have to keep in mind that by summer of 1944 the Tiger was not the über kitty it once was. The Panther beats it both in terms of frontal defense and offensive penetration capacity. The Tiger's strength remains in being able to stand off at great distances and both defeat hits and deal out accurate fire. The closer it gets to an enemy tank (especially something like a Firefly or M10), the more it loses it's advantage. There's a reason why Tiger 1s were out of production by this time More later when I have some info. Stevethanks for the reply, this one just appears to be something in the numbers, but only from your end can that story be told. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Two things: Could "Upper Front Hull" be a badly worded reference to the TOP of the hull. In other words, a deflection of a round from somewhere else down onto the thin top armor? Just a thought. Secondly, there are two Tigers modelled in the game, the second (late) specifically refers to degraded armor in production, but does not refer to inferior armor at ONE specific location. Have you tried both models of tiger in the test? I only used the mid-production version in my testing. I have no idea how 1/3 of hits could be hitting the top of the tank when I couldn't get even one on the shot-trap of the Panther. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm_stanley Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 One more point, has anyone taken into account the ammo type from the m10? Could those rounds hitting the tiger be of rare apcb type? or a heat round? Could that account for a different penetration algorithm for the flat non angled armor plate on the tiger? My understanding of heat rounds in wwII is that they would tumble in flight and were unreliable (over 500m). Also read somewhere that American apcb rounds were finicky in the sense that the round would spall more (something to do with muzzle velocity) against sloped armor, but had better results against flat or high angled armor, which might account for why the panther seemed immune? I can't for the life of me think that Steve & co. actually wrote code for this variation, but then again, it wouldn't surprise me. I watched a history channel show that talked about the small gap underneath the turret mated to the chassis? That was a space where most American tank gunners would aim for, since if the round hit that space it would 1) penetrate and 2) jam the turret rotation? from the tests however, there is clearly a weak spot being modeled, wither it's correct or not is open to interpretation.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 HVAP ammo is only available in the game on the "Late" model M10. I used the regular M10. US 76mm rounds suffered from something called "shatter gap" which caused the round to under-perform against Tiger and Panther armor at certain angles and ranges. This was caused by the nose of the AP round being too soft and had the strange effect of making the 76mm sometimes perform worse at short range than at medium range. I don't know if this is modeled in the game, but it should be since it was in CMx1. From the link posted earlier in this thread Rexford speaks from the grave: With regard to Tiger armor, shatter gap normally occurs when the armor thickness is close to, equal to or thicker than the projectile diameter. U.S. 76mm APCBC hits on Tiger armor would fall into this category. If 76mm APCBC hit the Tiger driver plate at 12° side angle, the resultant resistance would equal 109mm at 0°. With shatter gap, rounds fail when they have 1.05 to 1.25 times the armor resistance, which would result in M10 failures from point blank to 550 meters range, and then penetrate from 550m to 750m. On M10 hits against the Tiger side armor at 30° side angle, the resistance would equal 103mm at 0°, and M10 hits would be expected to fail from point blank to 800m, and then penetrate from 800m to 1000m. U.S. Navy tests during WW II against 3" armor at 30°, using 76mm APCBC, resulted in 50% penetration at about 2069 fps impact, and then the hits failed from 2073 fps through 2376 fps. Firing tests with 75mm APCBC did not appear to result in shatter gap failures, suggesting that impact velocities above 2000 fps would be required for nose failure. Prior to Normandy, the Americans calculated that their 76mm gun would be sufficient to stop Panthers and Tigers, since the 100mm frontal armor on those panzers could theoretically be penetrated to 1250m by M10's and 76mm armed Shermans. Shatter gap may be responsible, in part, for the sorry showing of those guns in France against heavy German armor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Charles looked into this and there is a problem that will be fixed with v1.01. As suspected a few pages ago, the deck armor for the front most part of the tank was too thin. Should be 62mm. The funny thing is Charles tried to find this data (CMx1 didn't simulate it directly) and couldn't find anything to confirm the thickness. So he punted and went with the same number as was used elsewhere on the tank's deck. Since it is nearly flat (i.e. highly sloped) straight on shots had very little chance of penetrating. But when you turn the tank juuuuust right, shots now have a good chance of penetrating where before they didn't. Or something like that Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm_stanley Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 what about the gap I talked about? I think the show was "Greatest Tank Battles" and it was the Battle of the Bulge episode and this tanker was talking about his aim point, which was the space in between the turret and chassis, that was a "known" weak spot on the Tiger... he claims to have hit it and rendered the tank inoperable.. The whole episode is on youtube.. Here is the first part.. but there is a vinnette about this somewhere in that episode.. no time to watch the whole thing again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leJfEeULB5M 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 BTW, this is what the US Army was officially putting out in 1944; one of several charts from the Ordnance manual Terminal Ballistics Data Vol II, 1944. Not very specific, but at least based on real-world tests. And their comments: 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.