Tarquelne Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 but it clearly indicates that it only happens when the MANTLET is hit Not from the quote you gave. Maybe there's more context, maybe it's a language thing, but to clearly indicate it only happens when the mantlet is hit the quote needs to say it "only" happens when the mantlet is hit. The quote could instead indicate there's a problem with the great frequency with which mantlet hits break the telescopes. Without context I'd even say that's the way it should be interpreted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 sorry tarquelne i`ve made a quotation mistake the correct statement is: "The telescopes of the TZF12 gun sights break apart AS A RESULT of hits on the gun mantlet. The expenditure of protective lenses for the TZF12 is very high." This should make it clear that it only happened when the mantlet is hit. Like c3k already said only the version D and early modell A uses the TZF12. later versions used the TZF 12a (monocular) and from the modell A onwards the mantlet of the panther was strenghtend in this area. i do not think that a hit on the mantlet breaks the whole gunsight. my interpretion of the whole thing is that hits on the mantlet could cause damage to the tubes (due to the impact shock) and therefore the protective lenses which protect the whole gunsight from damage start to break. which causes limited vision (spider web of broken glass) like i`ve already showed in the video on page 9 of this thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 sorry tarquelne i`ve made a quotation mistake the correct statement is: "The telescopes of the TZF12 gun sights break apart AS A RESULT of hits on the gun mantlet. The expenditure of protective lenses for the TZF12 is very high." This should make it clear that it only happened when the mantlet is hit. No, it doesn't. It indicates that hits on the mantlet are probably the main - but not the only - cause. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 No, it doesn't. It indicates that hits on the mantlet are probably the main - but not the only - cause. ok where in the statement it is something indicated that its not the only cause ? as far as i know: as a result means ... because something happens a certain consequence is happening. but he only says as a result ! he does not state anything about other hit locations that cause TZF damage. so how can you say that its not the only case ? also i do not doubt that in 1 out of 1000 incidents other hits could have caused damage to the optics but i think the statement clearly supports my theory that optics damage in cmbn is triggered to easily from non penetrative hits all over the tank ( such as tracks, hull front and side, armor skirts, turret sides and rear top hull) ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 ok where in the statement it is something indicated that its not the only cause ? There's no explicit statement either way. as far as i know: as a result means ... because something happens a certain consequence is happening. As a result of your post I'm posting. Does that mean I only post in response to your posts? It does not. but he only says as a result ! he does not state anything about other hit locations that cause TZF damage. so how can you say that its not the only case ? The only thing one can say for sure is that you *can't* say, for sure, that MANTLET hits are the only cause. When you base your argument on that certainty your argument has a poor base. also i do not doubt that in 1 out of 1000 incidents other hits could have caused damage to the optics but i think the statement clearly supports my theory that optics damage in cmbn is triggered to easily from non penetrative hits all over the tank ( such as tracks, hull front and side, armor skirts, turret sides and rear top hull) ! Maybe we don't agree on the meaning of the word "clearly." I'd say the statement "clearly" supports the idea that MANTLET (does it really need to be in all-caps?) hits frequently cause damage to the telescopes... and thus to "optics". But the real issue is just how often other hits cause damage to "optics". We need to understand just what "optics" means, and what the real frequency of other hits causing optics (OPTICS?) damage was. Your quote doesn't really address either issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 ok maybe i should not write "cleary" you are right with that. we also do not know to what optics ingame is really reffering and this will go on like that until it is cleared up by someone from bfc. but i`ve already posted that. there is no other statement in the whole report that other (non penetrating) hits caused ANY damage to the optics. i think the whole report is posted in the book but he only mentions that damage to the gunsight happened AS A RESULT of hits against the mantlet. So as he does not say anything about hits on the other parts that cause damage to the gunsight i would assume that hits to other parts are negligeble. maybe there were a few incidents but it wasnt worth reporting ! Seems logical to me !? Please post a better source if you have one but i havent found a single source that says anything about damage to optical system because of a non penetrating / riocheting hits for example against the frontal glacis plate. I`ve searched the jentz book, osprey duell and a lot of websites...nothing... apart from this little statement. but exactly hits like that cause optical damage ingame so bfc must have some kind of source to modell it in that kind of way. or they simply modelled it in a wrong way i dont know. maybe you have missed it but i`ve also posted a statement out of the same report that says that nearly all panther of the abteilung were hit by 76mm (russian) shells at the frontal armor and it had no negative consequence on the operating of the tank. In combination with that statement about the mantlet hits i`ve simply assumed that hits at the glacis obviously caused no damage but hits against the mantlet sometimes did ! and for your statement that there is no explicit statement either way: at least i am underlining my post with a source that seems reliable to me. i`ve also heard things like..."oh the impact shock cause damage to all kind of systems inside the tank" but if you ask someone about a source that would support that...nobody does it ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 ok now i`ve found a really strange incident that occured during a pbem play. iam currently playing the map huzzar on the allied side. a m4 mid tank of me was ambushed by a german recon vehicle (250/9) with a 20mm cannon (ap shells). the recon vehicle hit my shermans left side armor and within about 3 fire bursts (30 seconds) the shermans optics were completely broken, the radio was nearly broken and the tracks received some damage. ok while i can live with the radio damage because the burst maybe hit the antenna and maybe even with the track damage (even though a 20mm ap shot isnt that mighty) i could not understand how side hits could do damage to the optics without penetrating the armor (the tank stood in a very lucky angle) so i did a quick test scenario with the recon vehicle around 150 m away from the sherman (sherman was positioned broadside to the recon vehicle to get hit in the side like in the scenario) the recon vehicle penetrated the sherman side armor so i decided to modify the test and put up axis vs. axis. recon vehicle against tiger mid tank. the recon vehicle should not be able to penetrate the tigers side so i could concentrate on the subsystem damage from nonpenetrating hits. the result was that in each test round the tiger had red X optics, red X radio and red X tracks within 2 minutes before the recon vehicle went out of ap ammo. that all happened of course without any penetration. come on... can anybody explain to me how the tiger or a sherman gets blinded (all optics damaged, red X) by side hits of 20mm ap shells ? all optics are mounted to the front....maybe some vision blocks of the commanders cupola that point to the side might get hit and build a spider web but that should be all. i`ve even turned the tank so the opposite site were the gunsight is mounted gets hit but still the tiger gets blinded ! to track damage: i can recall a statement from von lauchert out of the same report i`ve already posted that russian tank ap shells (76 and 45mm) that penetrated the tracks of the panther were not enough to completely immobilize the panthers. and now a small 20mm ap shell breaks away the tracks of shermans and tigers with some bursts ? heres the save game from the test: http://www.2shared.com/file/CZR_-TzF/test_tiger_recon.html if thats not pointing to that something is wrong with optics damage and track damage then i do not know ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Siffo998 I think you have made a reasonable case and I would hope at some point this might be looked at if BTS have the time. It seems a tweak might be needed if at all possible? I would put this below reducing the chance of buttoned Armour spotting Inf by themselves which seems a bit too easy IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Thanks Holien. I havent followed the Armor Spotting Infantry thread that much but you should also do some testing (If you havent done it already) because without save games and tests bfc wont change anything ! Just a advice out of my own experience ! I will certainly have a look at the thread maybe i can put in some testing myself ! Ok but back to business heres a comparison test...test parameters are nearly the same: tiger mid around 200m away from a m5a1 light tank with 37mm cannon. (next bigger caliber). First i`ve placed the tiger broadside with the right side facing the m5 and the result was that after 3 test runs and ten minutes of shooting (around 40 X 37mm ap shells) the tigers optics werent damaged at all ! The tracks were gone after around 5 minutes of shooting. the radio reached in 1 out of three tests the first damage degree (bright green rectangle). Please also keep in mind that because of the 60mm lower hull side armor some shells did armor spalling or even partially penetrated but their were no optics damage or any serious radio damage ! I`ve then placed the tiger frontally (because most of the optics are mounted to the front) and you know what !? after around ten minutes of shooting the radio reached the first damage degree (bright green rectangle). the optics werent damaged at all, the tracks neither ! There were also a lot of mantlet and turret hits but the shells did not harm the optics ! Heres the savegame for the tiger facing the m5 frontally: http://www.2shared.com/file/Gq_TlsLI/test_tiger_m5a1.html Ok what should i think of that ? 20mm ap shells fired to a tanks side armor or front armor killing his optics, radio and tracks within 2 minutes but 37mm ammo (around 40 shells) do no damage apart from track damage when they directly hit the tracks ? please bfc take a look at those strange subsystem damage because the game promised: "Extensive vehicle damage modeling individually for each sub-system including the most realistic ballistics, armor, and post-armor effects available to date" or at least comment my test in this thread ! maybe i am wrong and you have the ultimate sources that prove your modelling but i and the community wont know if you say nothing ! Please dont get me wrong i really really like the game but iam also really into WW2 tank combat and right now it doesnt feel right to me ! That wont keep me from playing the game but if you could refine the subsystem damage of cmbn this game would be the absolutely ultimate classic for me ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 @redwolf: youre example might be right but i still cannot see how your example explaines why the optics get damaged by riocheting/non penetrating hits when for example the lower hull is hit or the side hull or the armor skirt or the upper frontal hull... etc. Well that's good news then because that would mean there is a clear bug, and that makes it much easier to correct (as opposed to discussing back and forth about probabilities in a working model that ends up with odd outcomes). i dont know if i get your post right but do you want to say that there is so much optics damage from non penetrating hits because the game engine sees the turret front as the mantlet and therefore the probability of a hit against the optics area is much higher ? because actually the tests in this thread cleary showed that optics damaged is accumulated from hits all over the tank (even armor skirts, lower frontal hull, and track hits). actually it would be nice (i dream of that) if of all non penetrating hits only mantlet hits could cause optics damage but the experiences with the game and the tests posted in this thread clearly shows something different ! right now like i already said even a hit against the side hull can cause optics damage. we have even experienced track damage from a weapon hit during a test ! and this feels really wrong especially when you know that optics damage directly affects the spotting and aiming ability. due to that your tank breaks apart and gets useless just (for example) by non penetrating/riocheting hull hits. Ditto. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon river crossing Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I can't believe that this thread has not earned a response from the Devs, unbelievable :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javaslinger Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I can't believe that this thread has not earned a response from the Devs, unbelievable :confused: My thoughts exactly... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Err, sorry folks. I read it and got back to the OP about it but forgot to post here. To wit: we're looking into it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 sorry folks, maybe i should have posted the latest news: I`ve send a summary of all tests and sources posted in this thread to phil ...and like he said the devs are looking into it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon river crossing Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Bump itty bump 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hister Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Ha ha so funny - one user said the devs will say exactly what they then actually said on the matter! Well I really hope it gets fixed! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tread Head Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I have had multiple tanks taken out by armored cars... gotta love when you Tiger or Panther is made worthless by a M8... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I have had multiple tanks taken out by armored cars... gotta love when you Tiger or Panther is made worthless by a M8... What is happening to cause this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xian Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I can't believe that this thread has not earned a response from the Devs, unbelievable :confused: Maybe our peppering of comments has immobilised them? (sorry - couldn't resist). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I'm afraid given the limited development resource we have to pick between new content or bugfixes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killkess Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Thats not a real choice. Think about it this way: Will your already excisting costomer buy an extention which includes the same flaws? I for myself will not buy new stuff before the basics are fixed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I'm afraid given the limited development resource we have to pick between new content or bugfixes Well, thankfully your opinion isn't shared by BF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I have had multiple tanks taken out by armored cars... gotta love when you Tiger or Panther is made worthless by a M8... by subsystem damage with no penetration or by penetration itself ? well as far as i can remember the m8 is the one with the 37mm cannon. and the american 37mm has (according to cm1 tables) a penetration capability of 56mm at 500m and 0° angle. so yes it should be possible to penetrate the side armor of a panther at shorter distances. at extreme short distances (under 100m) it is even possible to penetrate the lower side hull armor of the tiger (it has only 60mm - between armor skirts and tracks). but if you are talking about subsystem damage without penetration like optics damage i cannot see how the m8 should achieve that in real life. my own ingame tests with a m5 (also 37mm) showed me that a 37mm does nearly no optics or radio damage even after 48 hits at a tiger at low range. havent tested it with the m8 though. track damage and immobilization is possible ingame after a couple of side hits to the tracks but that doesnt sound impossible. . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I'm afraid given the limited development resource we have to pick between new content or bugfixes I find that hard to believe, seeing that with every CMSF module release BFC also released a patch for the base game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Thats not a real choice. Think about it this way: Will your already excisting costomer buy an extention which includes the same flaws? I for myself will not buy new stuff before the basics are fixed. Doesn't that require that you acknowledge the flaws first? 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.