German tanks to cheap or allied tanks to expensive? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

nexus -> German tanks to cheap or allied tanks to expensive? (9/27/2001 12:29:00 AM)

hello. iīm shure that this topic was already posted some time ago. i just compared the prices of allied tanks as shermanīs to german ones like tiger/panther. okay, the m4 with 76mm gun is a good tank,but no match for a panther/tiger. but these are only a little bit more expensive. i think (as reality was..) the germanīs should cost double (or so...) than the allied ones. am i wrong with this???



achappelle -> (9/27/2001 12:46:00 AM)

Your theory definitely holds true to what the designers maintain is their quality over historical quantities, as a method for calculating point values.



john g -> (9/27/2001 4:51:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by nexus:
hello. iīm shure that this topic was already posted some time ago. i just compared the prices of allied tanks as shermanīs to german ones like tiger/panther. okay, the m4 with 76mm gun is a good tank,but no match for a panther/tiger. but these are only a little bit more expensive. i think (as reality was..) the germanīs should cost double (or so...) than the allied ones. am i wrong with this???
The values are figured by plugging in the various stats of the tanks and crunching out a number. If you have issues with the current formula, you might work up another one that is more evenhanded. Submit a formula for figuring the value of units (don't forget it has to figure infantry and arty as well), and see if anyone wants to change to it. I forgot how many megs Paul V. said the oobs were as a spreadsheet, we could leave it up to you to recalc everytime a unit changed armor thickness or an infantry unit lost it's rifle grenades.
thanks, John.



Paul Vebber -> (9/27/2001 5:38:00 AM)

Version 7 rehashes the point value of everything using a tweaking version of the "infernal spreadsheet" (40+MB) IN teh new scheme of things there is greater "dynamic range" in the point cost. A Stuart is 51, The cheapest Sherman is 82, the "top of the line" Easy 8 is 148. A Pershing 181. German side a PZ IIIe is 53, a Pz IVg is 98, a Tiger is 168 and a King Tiger is 226 For the Soviets a T-26 is 32, a BT-7 is 40, a T-34/m41 87, a KV-1 109, a T-34/85 124, an IS-2, 143 and an IS-3 249 Infantry squads range from 15-40 or so based on weapons and capabilities (engineers and Spec ops are the most expensive) [ September 26, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



bchapman -> (9/27/2001 5:49:00 AM)

Hi Nexus,
If you want to do a search on this subject, you should be able to find plenty of discussion on it. It has be hashed, rehashed, cussed and discussed (mostly cussed).
If you are having a problem with email games, just play with the True Troop/Rarity On in the preferences. This should reduce the # of Panthers/Tigers/Elephants availble for purchase. I understand your feelings, but I don't think you are going to get it changed. Personally I just use the Rarity button when playing games where my opponent might be tempted to overbuy on the heavy stuff. Same for artillery.
Cheers



Charles2222 -> (9/27/2001 7:32:00 PM)

Paul Vebber: Is there a way to accept V.7 changes without taking on the OOB changes? Could one place the OOBs off in a separate directory, and then copy over the old OOBs if one wanted to accept them? If I did that from the get-go, would there be a way to view the new OOBs in an alternate directory like that, or would I have to move the old OOBs to another directory instead, so that I could view the new ones? I ask this because I don't know the totality of what type of files these OOBs are, and rarely does it seem that games give you specific instructions as you're downloading for doing this sort of thing. Maybe here, but I don't know. Thanks.



Truckeye -> (9/27/2001 8:11:00 PM)

hi paul, im just a rookie at the formula thing, but i really have a hard time equating a js2 and an easy8 as virtual equals. do the points take into account #s of that unit fielded or availability? i would vote against that with the theory, if you want more t34s than panzers, give the soviets more points to spend. is reliability taken into account? for the cost im taking js2s every time then. jp



nexus -> (9/27/2001 9:58:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Truckeye:
hi paul, im just a rookie at the formula thing, but i really have a hard time equating a js2 and an easy8 as virtual equals. do the points take into account #s of that unit fielded or availability? i would vote against that with the theory, if you want more t34s than panzers, give the soviets more points to spend. is reliability taken into account? for the cost im taking js2s every time then. jp
i think russian tank building costs were somewhat lower than allied ones and even more low than the germansīs. so i think itīs ok. for me the numbers posted by mr. vebber seem quite okay,better than the actual ones. thanx,sirīs!!! to that guy that says change the ratings of tanks or somethink like that: i see absolutely no sense in changing the rates of tanks. i want historically acuracy and if i give a sherman m4 a 88mm anti tank gun,there is no historic flair anymore in this game. i would do that perhaps for fictional scens or so,but not for e-mail games or "real" scens and campaigns.



Grimm -> (9/27/2001 11:20:00 PM)

I have never seen the formulas but it is my understanding that they do not factor in availability or manufacturing costs. Neither factor is relavent to the unit cost. Availability has been addressed by the Rarity factor option. JSII v Easy 8 - I could see how they might have similar unit values. The JSII has better frontal armor and a bigger gun but suffers from poor fire control and very limited ammo load. I have used the JSII in late war scenarios and I was left unimpressed. They could take a hit well but they didn't really hit much and you cannot afford to take low probabilty shots due to limited ammo load. (I always play w/ limited ammo ON). My $0.02



Paul Vebber -> (9/28/2001 12:32:00 AM)

Charles, What is it about the new OObs you don;t like? Do you have the latest version (24 Sept). Technically you can use Fred's editor Dump to csv to slice and dice them anyway you like. I think these are pretty good, not perfect, but better... The "formula" gives a weight to every data point a unit has All tanks are evaluated consistently. Lack of ammo really hurts the IS-2 (as "breakthrough" tanks they carried primarily HE - only 10 rnds of AP). No matter what "formula" you use there will be seeming anomolies, if simply because some pplayers find combinations of units and tactics to exploit synergy that makes them powerful beyond their individual "score" would indicate.



Panzer Leo -> (9/28/2001 1:15:00 AM)

I don't know the formula, but it seems, that some synergie effects do not count and that the real "battle worthiness" is sometimes quite different from the costs. In your example, Paul, I do not understand, how a JS-3 can have higher costs then a Koenigstiger. The JS-3 is in many aspects inferior. To me it looks, like the high costs come from the way better side armor of the JS, maybe a 12,7mm is rated higher as NvW92 and his better speed...
But, the battle worthyness of the Koenigstiger his way higher:
-better gun
-better FC
-better RF
-better gun stabilizer
-better frontal armor
If you take two equally good players and no terrain or weather effects that would favour one side, the JS-3 is really not a match for the Koenigstiger. At distances around 1400m it is nearly defenseless and can only hope for success when getting close enough.
I know it is a heavy breakthrough tank and not really the same like a Koenigstiger, but it's usefullness on the battlefield is limited and therefore should cost way less then the Koenigstiger.
What I mean is, the Koenigstiger is only better in a few features, mathematically. But these are the points that count. A JS-3 is better in many things, but they are the useless ones... shouldn't it be reflected in the costs...



Larry Holt -> (9/28/2001 2:06:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Truckeye:
hi paul, im just a rookie at the formula thing, but i really have a hard time equating a js2 and an easy8 as virtual equals. do the points take into account #s of that unit fielded or availability? ... jp

The costs take into account only the combat power of a unit in a SPWaW battle. They do not off battlefield factors such as # produced, cost to produce, etc.



Charles2222 -> (9/28/2001 2:25:00 AM)

Paul Vebber:
quote:

Charles, What is it about the new OObs you don;t like? Do you have the latest version (24 Sept). Technically you can use Fred's editor Dump to csv to slice and dice them anyway you like.
I haven't got any OOBs since 6.1, and that's the way I want it. I have no time to bother with unofficial versions, and I'm not on the anti-Tiger team either so it's not like they were needed. I'm not too sure what you mean by editor dump, but I have modified my own OOBs slightly before through that editor. If that editor would be able to go to any directory on my computer, that would certainly help, and I'm not saying it doesn't, I just don't recall that it could. In any case I don't know the OOB extensions from any of the others. I'm not sure what's been done with the OOBs, but the fact that you mentioned the Tiger FT being reduced to 158 and the MG42 discussion (these just 'happen' to be weapons that US players would happen to face, as pre-US Gerry stuff is never complained about) that went on makes me very suspicious that post-'42 Gerry has taken a beating. I can alter Tiger FT afterwards back to the 175 or whatever it is now. I can remember to look up the MG42 ratings before I download too, but I sure don't want to have go through what might be all sorts of little nuances to bring down Gerry and then change ALL of that on many units. I don't have a whole lot of opinion on pricing, at least what you say has been done, because given the limits and the liberal amount of replacement points doled out, the price of most things don't enter into campaigner's concerns too much. I hope that CL's replacement points is more along the lines of Panzer Strike, etc., to where it's a challenge dealing with limited points and delays in fighting the next battle if you re-equip too much. Summing up, at least as SPWAW stands, campaign-wise, currently, I have much less issue with any pricing that could be made up, than with Gerry stuff being chiseled away so the US stuff can destroy it from the front (or of course MG42's proving too much of a nuisance, or whatever other thing in Gerry pool must be too threatening).



Paul Vebber -> (9/28/2001 2:35:00 AM)

Neither the IS-3 or KT can "normally" penetrate each other frontally - the equivalent armor is similar - 280 for the KT and 270 for the IS-3. The respective base pentrations are 232 for the 88 and 189 for the D-25T. The stab difference of 2 to 1 only really plays if both are moving full tilt, the higher speed of the IS-3 actually makes this at least a wash if not tipped slightly toward teh IS-3 in a mobile situation. The KT gun is better, but unlike the D-25T that can easily penetrate the flank of the KT (189 vs 100) the KT has to get lucky to get a kill even at teh flank of the IS-3 (232 vs 210 - even a 20 degree angle in teh horizontal makes this 50/50 propasition. So the IS-3 can use its better mobility to deny effective shots to the KT and take advantage of the vulnerable flanks of the KT. THe KT must use its superior guna and ammo suply to "beat the IS-3 to a bloody pulp" and hope it gets lucky before the IS-3 gets unsuppresed... The relative ability of enemy guns to penetrate dries teh armor value, since the IS-3 is much better armored overall than the KT, and has better mobilty (11 typical hexes vs 8) it comes out slightly better in the scoring (KT 226 to 249 a 10% difference) that deopending on tactics I think is reasonable.



nexus -> (9/28/2001 2:47:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Grimm:
I have never seen the formulas but it is my understanding that they do not factor in availability or manufacturing costs. Neither factor is relavent to the unit cost. Availability has been addressed by the Rarity factor option. JSII v Easy 8 - I could see how they might have similar unit values. The JSII has better frontal armor and a bigger gun but suffers from poor fire control and very limited ammo load. I have used the JSII in late war scenarios and I was left unimpressed. They could take a hit well but they didn't really hit much and you cannot afford to take low probabilty shots due to limited ammo load. (I always play w/ limited ammo ON). My $0.02
on not to high distance and not moved this turn the gun of the JSII isnīt that bad. and if this gun hitīs it usually destroys the target,except the very heavy german tanks as king tiger or elefant. but generally spoken the t34/85 or the su100 are compared to the price the better ones... the "easy8" is a great tank,but can it be that it has a somewhat higher breakdown rate (main gun and immobilizing in tree terrain)??? i noticed that while playing the "the victors" campaign. i thought the us-vehicles in ī45 were very reliable.



Paul Vebber -> (9/28/2001 2:50:00 AM)

THere is a general lowering of nearly all "thick" armor because it simply wasn't as effective, side armor on the KT for example gets a10% bonus from 80 to 88 that is very significant vs US AP The penetration assumes US 240BHN test plate. Some armor was better, some was worse, most "thick" armor, especially as the war went on was increasingly flawed. German armor 175mm thick did not behave as US 240BHN test plate, so it has been reduced I tempered the reduction in MG 42 it has an HE kill of 14 in the new OOBs out of compatibility with existing balanced scenarios as anything analytic. Everybody has an opinion on what to rate things, there is no objective way to do it given the scenario development the MCs represent, so the changes are relatively minor in most cases.



Charles2222 -> (9/28/2001 2:53:00 AM)

nexus: They have a 'national' rating for all equipment breakdown rates, so that one Sherman wouldn't be more reliable than another, besides, if anything, you'd think the Easy Eight was less relaible for all the extra armor weighing it down more, although they may had put a super power-train in to compensate, but the game wouldn't reflect that breakdown difference anyway.



Panzer Leo -> (9/28/2001 4:46:00 AM)

I see, what you're saying with the JS-3 armor, Paul. I made some tests and was really surprised by the outcome. The armor values of KT and JS-3 are that high (up to 390 without ricochet), that both guns cannot penetrate the other tanks front, except with a lucky vulnerable location hit (test range 100m). This kind of invulnerability really astounded me and I tried the biggest gun, the 128mm of the Jagdtiger. Again no way to penetrate a 115mm curved turret of the JS-III at 100m.
Now my question:
Where these tanks really immune to such big calibers ?
The Russians claimed they could penetrate the KTs hull plate at 1000m with the 25DT. This always sounded like propaganda to me (I'm talking of the article on Russian War Zone), but I never had a doubt, they had been able to do so at closer ranges of 300 or 400m, e.g.
Is my impression of WWII heavy armor wrong and there were no weapons able to penetrate KT or JS-III fronts ?



IKerensky -> (9/28/2001 5:02:00 AM)

As my old german border guard from SP2 1950 will tell you : there is no way
But as far as I know JSIII dont saw real action , or at last no armored fighting warfare so I just dont know about their behaviour versus KT.
Believe just in that : all late war super tank can easily get killed by just 1 man , a late war AT RP, and a good cover to launch a close shoot



Paul Vebber -> (9/28/2001 5:08:00 AM)

Thats why post-war saw going to Sabot, conventional AP will only penetrate so much. Whether the KT front could withstand repetedpounding at close range from 122mm depends on who you believe. Both are likely correct. With good quality armor, a KT front was probably only vulnerable to "critical hits"...teh rub being how many KTs had good quality unflawed armor...the world may never know...



Panzer Leo -> (9/28/2001 5:42:00 AM)

Well, that goes into philosophie..., i don't know either...
I made further tests. The 88L71 is in almost every reference listed with a max penetration of around 225 at 0
The 88L56 is listed with about 155 at 0
At an angle of 30, the 88L71 is listed with 200 and the 88L56 with 120.
When I test this in SPWAW, the 88L56 behaves exact as it's supposed to do...will just penetrate 120 at 30
But the 88L71 has only a penetration of about 170 at an angle of 30, not 200, as listed.
As I understand the calculation in SPWAW, everything is calculated down to an angle of 0. This means the gun penetration rate stays (at a specific range, a bit randomized) and the armor plate is calculated as if it would have 0 degrees.
This would mean, an armor plate of 200 has a resistance of about 225 at 0. But here it is a thickness of only 170 that gets this value.
When you increase the angle to 40, it goes up to
275. This means, an angle of 30 gets a bonus of 25mm and just 10 degrees more get 75mm, three times more by an increase of one third of the angle ? I know, the angle plays an important role, but this seems a bit too important...?
Is the formula supposed to work loke this ?



john g -> (9/28/2001 3:27:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Panzer Leo:

Is the formula supposed to work loke this ?
If you have trouble visualizing this, try drawing two lines on a piece of paper approx an inch (25mm) apart. Now rotate the paper 40 degrees and measure aross the lines at the 40 degree angle, you will be amazed how much more distance you have between the lines when the angle goes up. Realize that as you approach a 90 degree rotation the thickness approaches infinity. In reality it doesn't work this way 100% because not all the force is expended in a straight line as the shell impacts the armor. The more you rotate the angle the greater the addition. This is one reason why hills were so important during WWII, reducing the enemy armor angle by shooting down or adding to friendly armor angle by having the enemy shoot up will often make the differance between living and dying.
thanks, John.



Kharan -> (9/28/2001 3:56:00 PM)

I also am a bit leery about the new OOBs, considering the source and it's prior "achievements". But if there was a list of changes, then at least we could see for ourselves.



Panzer Leo -> (9/28/2001 4:04:00 PM)

You're right, John, but to me it looks like there is an unintended "jump" in the formula. Don't you think an increase of 11% for the first 30 degrees and an increase of some 60% more for the next 10 degrees to a total of 40 degrees sounds reasonable ?
Also, I would think, that the critical angle is somewhere around 45/50 degrees, as the deflected shot would not have to change direction by more then 90 degrees, when deflected, meaning a lot of energy is kept in the shot and not passed to the armor...
The second point is, that the 88L71 did penetrate up to 200mm at 30 degrees. In the game it does not. It penetrates just about 170mm at 30. This is the same for all bigger guns, so it's a formula thing...



john g -> (9/28/2001 7:52:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Panzer Leo:
You're right, John, but to me it looks like there is an unintended "jump" in the formula. Don't you think an increase of 11% for the first 30 degrees and an increase of some 60% more for the next 10 degrees to a total of 40 degrees sounds reasonable ?
Also, I would think, that the critical angle is somewhere around 45/50 degrees, as the deflected shot would not have to change direction by more then 90 degrees, when deflected, meaning a lot of energy is kept in the shot and not passed to the armor...
The second point is, that the 88L71 did penetrate up to 200mm at 30 degrees. In the game it does not. It penetrates just about 170mm at 30. This is the same for all bigger guns, so it's a formula thing...
You are making some assumptions here, 200mm at 30 of what sort of metal? What sort of armor gets a 200mm rating? As Paul has said the armor gets transformed to equal one standard hardness armor, so 170mm of game armor may in fact be 200mm of less resistance armor. There is also a 255 limit, so as the armor approaches that number I would guess the rating is nonlinear, so that the rating follows the curve not a simple 1 to 1 rating. Do you have the complete list of criteria that they use for converting book armor thickness to game armor ratings? Also reaize that armor testing is done with the vehicle directly in front of the gun. Very seldom is a shot at a vehicle directly head on, you will be shooting a vehicles at an oblique angle most of the time adding an additional angle to the equation. If I really wanted to argue out picky details like this, I would be playing with the local armor miniatures group. Instead I would rather play a game that can handle the game details for me while I concentrate on commanding the force not figuring the effective armor thickness for a shot against a tank hull at some 3 angle oblique shot. Why not complain that the game assumes flat trajectory for all shots, the angle of the at round never changes vs the armor, which is yet another factor in penetrating, but not enough of a factor to worry about except at extreme ranges.
thanks, John.



Panzer Leo -> (9/28/2001 8:14:00 PM)

Look at the "guns vs armor" page and you'll find your points and you'll also see, that they are included in my assumptions.
I'm not picky on some irrelevant details here, but my concern is, that the behaviour of WWII armor in combat is not really reflected as it was. I think, it should be possible to put out the heavy tanks with an adequate gun. This is how it was and that's why it should be in the game. There were no "immune" tanks in WWII.
Good you mentioned the angle. In the current formula it seems, that sloped armor of 50 degrees and higher gets really hard to penetrate and every 5 degrees make a lot difference at this level. Now try to calculate the penetration (I'm mostly relying on Lorrin's posts for slope effect) of the 88L56 vs a 70mm plate at 55 degrees. You'll see, that it does not matter wheter the 88L56 fires at 0m or 1500m, because the angle at 1500m changes, helping the penetration performence...
At the moment sloped armor seems to give some tanks a bigger bonus then they deserve...



Paul Vebber -> (9/28/2001 9:52:00 PM)

Kharan: I am the ultimate author of the OOBs, I reviewed the comments EVERYONE contributed in deciding what got in and what didn't. I take you consider my ability to do that deficient? What method would you use to estimate the hundreds of data points necessary that there is no "ground truth" on? Blood was nearly spilled just trying to come to consensus on MG firepower Please be specific about the things that trouble you - "prior achievements"?!?!. Do you even have them (dated 24 Sept)? If not just ask...too many things have been tweaked to list- you just have to look through the files. I even lowered the vehicle FT values just for you PzLeo: The primary source for gun pentration is Lorrin Bird and Robert Livingstons "WWII Ballistics Armor and Gunnery". Robert is one of the primary sources of data for the guns vs armor wargamer.org site. Lorrin has been gracious enough to help me considerably with priliminary work on Combat Leader and to use include some of his formulas in that game. He has posted excellent data on the TO/E forum and is more than happy to discuss these sort of details. See my post there also. The thing that you are not accounting for in the 170 vs 200 thing is T/D ratio. Book penetration numbers are nearly useless to use for determining if a giving piece of armor can be penetrated, because as I explain in the T/D thread up at TO&E, the penetration varies as a function of thickness to diameter ratio. The game accounts fo the variation in penetration with T/D, but it does so in "steps" because I did not have Lorrin's formulation back then and did my own curve fit to data I had to get a table of T/D adjustment factors that the game uses. The difference is no more than a couple of % between my "step values" and Lorrin's smooth functions. I only have APCBC and APCR - AP rounds are assumed APCBC and APDS assumed the same as APCR. COmbat Leader has more shell types. Penetration in the game for 0 degrees is based on Lorrin's work where he adjusts to US 240BHN test plate and 50% probability of penetration. The game assumes that projectiles tend to fail to meet expectaiton abit more often than exceed it, and becasue there are some projectile failure mechanisms that SP:WaW does not consider that Lorrin does, the random number draw is skewed abit downward. (making it slightly less likely then 50% that "equal" pen and armor values will result in a penetration.) As a rule of thumb, (not considering T/D) to convert a base armor and slope to "0 degree equivalent" is to take base/((cos(angle))^1.4) The T/D is used is to adjust the "power factor" from 1.1 at very low T/D known as "overmatch" the armor tend to "plug" and fail catastrophically. At high T/d the power factor can exceed 2 as the armor tends to "flow" and compress away frm the projctile, increasing the effective resistance substantially until the ound penetrates to sufficient depth to cause the mechanis to shift to plug failure. So depending on the T/D ratio both 200m and 170mm canbe correct penetration values. The game also seperately compute the probability of ricochet. The game also assumes that the target is not "frozen" in the same position round after round so a +/-10 Degree horizontal random factor on the horizontal angle. The bottom line is if you agree with Lorrin and Roberts methodology, it is basically what I use (though not all the things like shatter are explicitly modeled - that will have to wait for Combat Leader). I ran several comparisons between the pridicted probability of penetration using Lorrins book, and tests using SP:WaW and the results were no worse than 15% off and most (albeit a small sample - like 7 or 8) were within 5% If you haven't ordered WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunner, it is required reading to understand the issues. [ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



Paul Vebber -> (9/28/2001 10:04:00 PM)

Sorry PzLeo - I did not see you page 2 post before posting my reply.
quote:

You'll see, that it does not matter wheter the 88L56 fires at 0m or 1500m, because the angle at 1500m changes, helping the penetration performence...
The change in angle of attack for the incoming shell is small (a few degrees) and it is assumed that the unevenness of the ground is at least as big a factor - the vertical angle used is randomized between -6 and +3 in a "sum of 3 dice rolls" distribution. The whole pont of T/D is exactly that the angular effect of thicker armor is more pronounced as the thickness of the armor increases and projectile diameter stays constant. The formulas in Lorrin and Roberts bookd show that.



lnp4668 -> (9/28/2001 10:11:00 PM)

This kinds of slightly off tangent, but will Combat Leader allows the player to select the ammo type (similar to Tiger on the Prowl)when they shoot at a target?



Panzer Leo -> (9/28/2001 11:08:00 PM)

The problem I have is, that e.g. the 88L71 is after all generalization lorrin put in (and as I understand, the T/D is included in some way) it was capable of penetrating 200mm at 30 degrees.
So I tried to simulate this in the game with a custom made tank that has exactly this armor and
I was not able to recreate this penetration capability. The randomizing of the angle you mention looks like it steps in too late in the formula, as the variation in effective armor value is not nearly as much as I think it would be.
For the T/D it sounds not reasonable, that a specific ammunition is only theoretical capable of penetrating 200mm at 30, but it never makes it in reality and you still list it with 200mm not 170mm or so. As I understand Lorrin, this is to some extend included in the 200mm performence) Example (this is rough data from Lorrin's post): effective armor at given angle
1.15*armor listed in OOB...30
1.25.......................35
1.35.......................40
1.5........................45
1.7........................50
2.1........................55
2.7........................60 this is for APCBC and as I said just rough... an armor of 100mm at 50 degrees would range after the angle variation of only +/- 5 from 150 to 210,
with a variation of +/-10 from 135 to 270.
The variation in the game is not nearly as much. It usually has a span of about 30mm and only decreases dramatically with a "vulnerable location hit" to about 50%.
A 88mm round fired by the 88L56 will come in on an angle 7 degrees at 2000m just calculating without additional ballistic effects, so it should be more in reality.
A decrease of 7 degrees at an high angle plate does a lot to the penetration performence as listed above. It can make up for 80mm effective armor in the example.
My point now is, that I have the feeling, that only the bonuses for sloped armor are in the formula, not it's flaws...
...I might be wrong, but something about the current way the formula behaves, makes me feel not so good about it and sloped armor is way to strong, at least for the thicker plates... [ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leo ]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.140625