Slitherine

quote:

Except you are completely wrong in reality. So far you have shown that your sources consists of two things:
1. Your feelings
2. Steel Beasts

quote:

Combined with the replaceable composite guard (a type of polyurethane punching pans that could also be upgraded with, for example, ceramic rods) in the tower, protection levels were well above what the western ammunition could break through. However, there were large ballistic holes (ie surfaces without protection from special pans) and in addition, explosive reactive solutions were only effective at 50% of the projected target surface.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gbem

quote:

Except you are completely wrong in reality. So far you have shown that your sources consists of two things:
1. Your feelings
2. Steel Beasts

actually its
1. steel beasts
2. calculation on cross sectional area based on the image from steel beasts using the length of the tank as an approximate "ruler"

far more accurate "feelings" though no true substitute for a professionally done calculations

quote:

Combined with the replaceable composite guard (a type of polyurethane punching pans that could also be upgraded with, for example, ceramic rods) in the tower, protection levels were well above what the western ammunition could break through. However, there were large ballistic holes (ie surfaces without protection from special pans) and in addition, explosive reactive solutions were only effective at 50% of the projected target surface.

vasily fofanov quotes it at 60%... havent seen data on K5 coverage from tankograd... regardless that is simply K5 coverage and does not include protection performance against a round...

the one you have linked for the T-80 against the DM33 is a good one but only accounts for the crew compartment without accounting for the whole cross sectional area of the vehicle... and therefore is a biased calculation for the purpose of this game...

quote:

Kontakt-5 is effective against KE penetrators. It is supposed to be able to reduce the effectiveness of sabots up to 40% and T-80U armor estimates all take it into consideration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gbem

quote:

Kontakt-5 is effective against KE penetrators. It is supposed to be able to reduce the effectiveness of sabots up to 40% and T-80U armor estimates all take it into consideration.

20% effective against KE penetrators... relikt is the one rated at 40% effective... regardless the improved protection of the Object 219 turret is capable of defeating the DM-33 without K5 at certain portions of the turret as you see with the very image youve sent...

here

quote:

Kontakt-5

quote:


The estimates for the effectiveness of K-5 vary wildly, some say 40%, some say 20%, some 30% and there might be some truth to all of them as newer rounds are designed to specifically defeat K-5 while older rounds are much more affected by them.

quote:

The estimates for the effectiveness of K-5 vary wildly, some say 40%, some say 20%, some 30% and there might be some truth to all of them as newer rounds are designed to specifically defeat K-5 while older rounds are much more affected by them.

quote:

Anyway, the point is Steel Beasts is hardly a source to take as gospel. You wouldn't be making the game closer to reality, just closer to Steel Beasts.

quote:

Again, in the game a weakshot hit is BY NO MEANS a penetration. I have demonstrated this yet you continue to regurgitate the same arguments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gbem

im simply asking for 2 new armor values... a per tank basis frontal weakspot percent chance and a weakspot armor value... not an overall reduction of hit chance to 5%... that ways vehicles with smaller like the leopard 2a4 and T-80U are given their appropriate weakspot value (6%) but also allow for low penetration guns (200+KE effective) to go through some of those tanks (T-80U) all the while sparing tanks like that have less weak weakspots (400+ KE effective)(leopard 2a4)... meanwhile tanks with bigger weakspots like the abrams can sit at higher percentage chances

quote:

ORIGINAL: gbem

if not then at the very least let the weakspot chance be moddable... that ways we can all be happy until multiplayer is added... in which case id be a strong contender for a more realistic model than a 15% universal number

quote:

This would be a big task to add especially with the database size and IMO there are more important tasks to focus on for the devs such as pathfinding, cell 1 unit limit etc. but if they are willing to do it in the future and they find it is worth the effort then maybe.

quote:

Yes I think point 2, the weakspot % chance being modable would make everybody happy :-)

Cheers

quote:

ORIGINAL: noooooo

Again in my opinion the best solution is to make the value moddable. Once it's moddable then everyone can change it to fit their own ideas. Hopefully this is one feature added in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I seem to recall this was at one point a triangular distribution (from 100% at 85% coverage, to 20% at 0% coverage)

Is this not still the case, or have I miss-remembered?

quote:

Hard to be objective, we all have bias. We are slaved to what data there is and much of it is grey. The database for AB is really good when I compare to my sources, which are the same sources as everyone else. I have found some data that I corrected based on the weight of other sources. For example, small caliber HEI that had NO AP rating (Marder 20mm), incorrect missile speeds (TOW's AB rated for 178 mps/ actual 320 mps) and the 73mm 2A28 early warhead with a range of 1200 meters (should be 9000-1000) to name some. You can't expect the Dev's to get it all right but AB is very close 90% of the time in my opinion. That's why we can mod the data base.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gbem



yeah but this statement "There are some differences in the two data sets (AB vs SB Pro), and we all know that the US 120mm has been downgraded 10% or so and that some Soviet 125mm are up rated." is inherently false... some soviet rounds are even underperforming in fact in accordance to the odermatt equation

quote:

What do you mean? Many sources show the M289 at 600mm penetration, in game it's 550 a 8.3% down grade and the M829A1 at 700 and 640 in game a 8.57 % downgrade. So yeah it's not exactly 10%. What are the APDamage number you are using in the game for the M829, DM-33, and BM22,26,29,32 and 42?

quote:

The Soviet standard for calculating the penetration limit of armour piercing projectiles is V80, meaning that the expected consistency of achieving full armour perforation given a certain projectile velocity must be 80%. In formulas, V80 must replace V50 (50% chance of armour perforation). For example, if a certain projectile has to penetrate 500mm of steel, then at least 80% of all projectiles of that type must achieve that standard. Also, the Soviet criteria for a full armour perforation dictates that 80% of projectile mass must be recorded on the other side of the target plate as opposed to U.S Army criteria which only requires that a hole is produced in the armour such that light can be seen from the other side. Overall, Soviet standards were not only stricter, but the steel they used for targets was sometimes of a greater hardness than NATO targets. In reality, the given penetration data may be an underrepresentation of the actual achievable penetration of these shells.

quote:

Let's remember when we get to PBEM / multiplayer. players will need to agree on the database they are using. Or perhaps the game will only allow the official DB to be used when playing against another human.

quote:

Perhaps in the future there can be one moddable global value. I doubt anyone ever will go through hundreds of vehicles and calculate the 'correct' values for all armor facings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gbem

quote:

Let's remember when we get to PBEM / multiplayer. players will need to agree on the database they are using. Or perhaps the game will only allow the official DB to be used when playing against another human.

if they introduce MP they need to fix the 3bm32/42 and DM33 penetrations (m829 outperforms these rounds for some reason)...balance out the silver bullet with the svinets... introduce per tank weakspot values and weakspot armor value... and introduce stuff like a scatter order and a cover SOP

quote:

I really hope MP is released before spending effort doing all that... Except the cover SOP/scatter order one

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I seem to recall this was at one point a triangular distribution (from 100% at 85% coverage, to 20% at 0% coverage)

Is this not still the case, or have I miss-remembered?

I don't remember all the discussions and experimentation we had, but currently there's a simple 15% random chance for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpabrams

Hard to be objective, we all have bias. We are slaved to what data there is and much of it is grey. The database for AB is really good when I compare to my sources, which are the same sources as everyone else. I have found some data that I corrected based on the weight of other sources. For example, small caliber HEI that had NO AP rating (Marder 20mm), incorrect missile speeds (TOW's AB rated for 178 mps/ actual 320 mps) and the 73mm 2A28 early warhead with a range of 1200 meters (should be 9000-1000) to name some. You can't expect the Dev's to get it all right but AB is very close 90% of the time in my opinion. That's why we can mod the data base.