My tiger gets flanked, but all ends happily

[Stylez]

... For me anyways. My opponent wasn't so keen on the outcome.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

That's the Tiger for you, its armour is pretty good all around.

And to add insult to your opponent's injury you lucked out in the way it angled itself.

I guess it is better to be lucky then good, huh?

[Vark]

Why is the Sherman shooting at the turret? Surely the rear hull was a better bet, better still aim for the tracks, pop smoke and get the hell out of le Dodge! Loved the tracer at night, but is it the right colour!

[siffo998]

actually a sherman 75mm isnt able to defeat the rear hull from a tiger even at point blank while against the turret he should maybe be able to defeat the armor up to a distance of 100m

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

The traversing of the chassis sidewards like it is seen towards the end makes the situation for the sherman more and more impossible to defeat the hull armor (because of the 45° angle).

after all the tiger doesnt seem to be overpowered...the sherman had just bad look...a few more hits to the turrets might have done the job...and a sherman 76mm would have dealt with the tiger in no time (at least at these range).

[womble]

Why is the Sherman shooting at the turret?

It's not. At least not 'on purpose'. It's been said before by BFC reps that all tank shots are aimed at the centre of mass. A string of turret hits is just a string of 'lucky' (your call as to whether that's good or bad luck ) shots.

[Other Means]

Roll on the Firefly...

[Boche]

Imagine been in that crew... the utter frustration and tension as the turret turned an you fire shot after shot without result...

[YankeeDog]

actually a sherman 75mm isnt able to defeat the rear hull from a tiger even at point blank while against the turret he should maybe be able to defeat the armor up to a distance of 100m

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

The traversing of the chassis sidewards like it is seen towards the end makes the situation for the sherman more and more impossible to defeat the hull armor (because of the 45° angle).

after all the tiger doesnt seem to be overpowered...the sherman had just bad look...a few more hits to the turrets might have done the job...and a sherman 76mm would have dealt with the tiger in no time (at least at these range).

Important thing to recognize about the tables from Jentz on that site is these numbers assume that the relevant plate of the Tiger is oriented at an angle of 30 degrees to the incoming shot, so they already assume a fair amount of horizontal angle.

At point blank range and with a more or less flat-on shot, the 75mm APBC round (a substantially improved round from what the Allies were using in 1942 & 1943) stands a good chance of penetrating any Tiger side or rear plate (mostly 80mm, little or no vertical slope; most stats put the 75mm APBC penetration at point-blank and zero deg. up around 95mm). But that 30 degrees horizontal offset is what makes the difference.

So in the instant situation, if that first round from the Sherman had hit the rear hull, there would have been a good chance of a KO. But once the Tiger got at least 20-30 degrees rotated around, the chances of a penetrating hit to the hull were slim.

[Broken]

It's not. At least not 'on purpose'. It's been said before by BFC reps that all tank shots are aimed at the centre of mass. A string of turret hits is just a string of 'lucky' (your call as to whether that's good or bad luck ) shots.

Center of mass aiming makes sense at long range, but at close ranges a tank gunner should be able to pick where he wants to hit his target.

Would a Sherman 76 gunner bounce round after round off a Panther front hull at 150m, rather than target the turret? Maybe, if he was Green or suppressed, but I would expect an experienced gunner to have some knowledge of his opponent's weak spots.

If the AI could aim at vulnerable points when conditions warrant, that would be an improvement.

[siffo998]

Important thing to recognize about the tables from Jentz on that site is these numbers assume that the relevant plate of the Tiger is oriented at an angle of 30 degrees to the incoming shot, so they already assume a fair amount of horizontal angle.

At point blank range and with a more or less flat-on shot, the 75mm APBC round (a substantially improved round from what the Allies were using in 1942 & 1943) stands a good chance of penetrating any Tiger side or rear plate (mostly 80mm, little or no vertical slope; most stats put the 75mm APBC penetration at point-blank and zero deg. up around 95mm). But that 30 degrees horizontal offset is what makes the difference.

So in the instant situation, if that first round from the Sherman had hit the rear hull, there would have been a good chance of a KO. But once the Tiger got at least 20-30 degrees rotated around, the chances of a penetrating hit to the hull were slim.

yes you are right...! but still its bad luck for the sherman that his first turret hit did not more harm...

[StellarRat]

The bottom line is the Tiger crew doesn't have to worry armor angles or ABCD caps or any other crap when they shoot. :-)

[womble]

Center of mass aiming makes sense at long range, but at close ranges a tank gunner should be able to pick where he wants to hit his target.

BFC think otherwise.

Would a Sherman 76 gunner bounce round after round off a Panther front hull at 150m, rather than target the turret? Maybe, if he was Green or suppressed, but I would expect an experienced gunner to have some knowledge of his opponent's weak spots.

"Round after Round" and you'll get some turret hits.

If the AI could aim at vulnerable points when conditions warrant, that would be an improvement.

It can't. Partly because even 'experienced' gunners (though they'd know the weak bits, maybe) didn't do it. Maybe at the highest level of experience they might, but in a game where you can pick experience levels, having such a step-change in ability available would be an invitation to gaminess. So they haven't implemented it. And if they did, people would just argue about what the conditions would be to warrant 'picking the shot'.

[Bigduke6]

Guess Oddball was wrong.

As for me, I think that really isn't reasonable performance. I would expect that as a general thing if a Sherman got 4-5 hits in on the backside of a Tiger at point blank range, it should most of the time be able to harm a Tiger.

But maybe that was a weird event, we'd have to see repeats of that to declare Tiger armor over-strong or the 75mm under-powered.

Broken may be onto something. Maybe there is some way to program "likelihood of a critical hit goes up" when you get to really close ranges, the idea being if the firing crew had a reasonable chance to aim specifically it would, rather then just aiming center mass at point blank range or at 2,000 meters, which is what the game does.

Not really an issue when the gun overmatches the armor significantly, but pretty important when right on the edge of AP performance for a weapon.

[Hetzer21]

Did the Tiger AI angle deliberately? Coo.

[ClarkWGriswold]

BFC think otherwise.

BFC doesn't have the time or resources to program it to be otherwise. There's a difference.

"Round after Round" and you'll get some turret hits.

Not really. Gunners in the game always aim at center of mass, and the turret is not center of mass. The only way you'll ever get a turret hit is blind luck or a bad shot. At these sorts of ranges, turret hits happening after the first shot or two is extremely unlikely, because factors like wind, incorrect range estimation, projectile drop, etc. have virtually no variation on where the round lands.

It can't. Partly because even 'experienced' gunners (though they'd know the weak bits, maybe) didn't do it.

Bullpucky. When you've got seconds to get off a shot that you aim for center of mass because it's the most likely way to get a hit. But when you're ambushing or very close to a defenseless vehicle, you pick your shot. Relying on anecdotal evidence is always risky, but there are simply too many first hand accounts of tank gunners aiming for weak points (when the situation allowed for it) to say that it didn't happen.

And if they did, people would just argue about what the conditions would be to warrant 'picking the shot'.

This bit I'll actually agree with you on. There is simply no easy way to design an AI to know when to take the first shot it can get versus picking a tougher, but more likely to kill shot. There are too many variables and we'd likely end up with behavior that's just as bad, but in different ways.

[siffo998]

Guess Oddball was wrong.

As for me, I think that really isn't reasonable performance. I would expect that as a general thing if a Sherman got 4-5 hits in on the backside of a Tiger at point blank range, it should most of the time be able to harm a Tiger.

But maybe that was a weird event, we'd have to see repeats of that to declare Tiger armor over-strong or the 75mm under-powered.

Broken may be onto something. Maybe there is some way to program "likelihood of a critical hit goes up" when you get to really close ranges, the idea being if the firing crew had a reasonable chance to aim specifically it would, rather then just aiming center mass at point blank range or at 2,000 meters, which is what the game does.

Not really an issue when the gun overmatches the armor significantly, but pretty important when right on the edge of AP performance for a weapon.

bigduke6 comment made me test this situation to see if their is really a problem:

so i set up a tiger mid (with his back to the sherman) around 50m infront of a sherman m4 late. both crews are regular...

i`ve retested the situation 10 times to see who finally wins more often and guess what:

tiger won 5 times

sherman won 5 times

this seems to be not at all strange.

during the test i`ve seen two situations when the sherman even one shot/one killed the tiger with a turret penetration. one times the tiger was destroyed after he tried to turn and showed the sherman his side in a 90° angle, the other times the tiger crew simply panicked and ran away because of the big amount of hits taken (penetrations, partial penetrations, spalling)

in most cases during the ten time testing (except for one as far as i remember) the tiger was immobilized by the sherman.

[Broken]

BFC think otherwise.

I know what Steve thinks. I think it would not be too difficult coding-wise for the AI to be smarter in it's target selection. The same goes when a tank crew pumps round after round into the same tree or dirt mound when it is aiming at a target beyond.

"Round after Round" and you'll get some turret hits.

At < 100m, they should all be turret hits. At 100m, a Panther turret is bigger in your sights than the entire Panther is at 500m.

It can't. Partly because even 'experienced' gunners (though they'd know the weak bits, maybe) didn't do it. Maybe at the highest level of experience they might, but in a game where you can pick experience levels, having such a step-change in ability available would be an invitation to gaminess. So they haven't implemented it. And if they did, people would just argue about what the conditions would be to warrant 'picking the shot'.

Certainly experienced crews knew what the vulnerable bits were on opponent tanks. Their survival depended on knowing such things. The Germans knew where to hit a Sherman to best brew it up. The Allies knew the Panther front glacis was the worst place to hit it.

Veteran and Crack units can already do many things better than less experienced units. Is that an "invitation to gaminess"? BFC has balanced increased experience with increased cost.

[Vark]

Important thing to recognize about the tables from Jentz on that site is these numbers assume that the relevant plate of the Tiger is oriented at an angle of 30 degrees to the incoming shot, so they already assume a fair amount of horizontal angle

I'd assume if you ever get to shoot a Tiger from the rear I doubt very much it is at a 30 angle, it probably does not even know you are there. I also doubt very much that tank crews did not endlessly run through the "s**t, what happens if it really IS a Tiger!" drill, several times a day. If a crew got it wrong they would suffer a horrific fate, we just wander over to another M4. Given there are other M4's lurking, in the clip, surely slap 1-2 AP's at the hull rear and if the beast is till moving a WP and reverse, better still reverse and turn the corner, perhaps firing on the move.