Have I missed something about AT weapons? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center



Message

String -> Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/12/2004 2:23:08 PM)

For a long time now i've noticed that heavy AT guns are rather ineffective at close ranges. For instance it took usually 1 shot (very rarely 2) to take out a churchill with a jagdpanther at 800m. But the same churchill will resist 3-4 shots from the same jagdpanther at closer ranges .. 150-200m. Is this WAD or is it just my bad luck?



Poopyhead -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/13/2004 10:41:38 PM)

Range is only one of the factors that contributes to your targeting success. The closer Churchill may have been in rough terrain or in defilade, or moving very rapidly. Check the manual for more insight, or check out the thread on "making the most of your direct fire". Normally, the 88 mm on a Jagdpanther tank destroyer should defeat anything not wearing a swastika.



String -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/15/2004 12:12:45 AM)

I think you didn't understand me correctly.. The shots hit, they only didn't penetrate



hellcat -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/15/2004 2:07:53 AM)

have you ruled out the possibility your gun may have switched to HE ammo after running out of AP, I've done that with 88s before and they're relatively well stocked... not sure on up close aspect but a big honco might know, try Goblin! [&o]



Poopyhead -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/15/2004 4:57:11 PM)

Sorry. So your Jagdpanther "hit" the Churchill 3-4 times before destroying it. That is strange. The Jagdpanther's 88 mm PAK 43/3 L71 only fired Armor Piercing rounds (APCR and APCBC) according to the tank's site, and it should have penetrated the Churchill's armor at the ranges you state. I found a reference that 3 Jagdpanhters once destroyed 10-11 Churchills in 2 minutes, but I couldn't find any reference of a Churchill surviving a hit. A couple nights ago, I had an 88 AT hit an armored car at 250 m without a kill, so I guess bad things can happen.



Wuotan -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/15/2004 5:13:00 PM)

Have seen it, too. It´s 9/44 in normandy, and i changed my early Tiger I into Königs-
tiger. At theyr first battle they faced a dozen late "Stuarts". The Königstiger scored several
hits that didn´t penetrate... unfortunately i can give no data, but the penetration-score
of the 88mm-projectils has been very low. One "Stuart" even took a hit on the top that wasn´t able to penetrate... but after 2 turns all Ami-tanks were slashed. Must be the amunition, no idea. Perhaps the penetration-model isn´t that good, but i can pretty well
live with that. It doesn´t ruin the whole picture at all (for me).

Greetings!



Voriax -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/15/2004 7:22:45 PM)

Hmm...I doubt there's a real problem. Back in the old days [;)] the hit angle model gave really interesting results...say you hit that thin top but the impact angle is only a degree or so? It can happen. In such case the effective armour thickness would be metres. This looked so ugly that the code was changed to display smaller values, as the real value had no practical meaning. And try imagine how many newbies were asking "why the armour value was 1234mm while it has only 25mm of hull armour?" Well, that was a glancing hit and that's it.

Similar behaviour happens all the time and with all nations. For example early war russian tank guns agains halftracks or early panzers. Non-penetrating hits even from up close are common even though theoretically the penetrating power is several times higher than the armour thickness. Though such hits are not as irritating as the penetrating hits that cause no damage...

Next time you play you could turn on combat logging and if these 'odd' non-penetrations occur try to figure out why from that log. The parameters are kinda obscure but it may help.

Just my opinion

Voriax



Wuotan -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/16/2004 12:08:03 PM)

Yep, no complains, Voriax. The actual model (don´t now the previous ones) satisfys me in
all terms. War isn´t a arithmetical problem from school, so SPWAW acts... realistic.

Greetings!



FNG -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/16/2004 3:18:49 PM)

Can't remember the scientific term for it, but HVAP vs. thin armour sometimes 'over-penetrates'. The armour doesn't generate enough resistance for the round to slow down much, let alone splatter all around the insides of the target vehicle - in one side, out the other - occasionally not hitting anything important en route.

I'm guessing that this is what SPWaW models when you get penetrating hits against 'flimsies' that don't destroy them. As for the 88mm vs. Churchill at short range, is this perhaps modelling the 'shatter gap'?



Voriax -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/16/2004 3:41:33 PM)

FNG, you are right about the overpenetration. THe warhead size plays an important part here..small warhead size combined with lots of 'excess' penetration and you start getting these non-damaging penetrations. It is not uncommon that you have to shoot 5-6 holes at an early war tank with an 37mm or an 45mm untill you kill it.

I'm not certain if the shatter gap is modelled..I kinda doubt it. But apcr rounds do occasionally shatter in the game.

Voriax



Charles2222 -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/17/2004 1:01:17 AM)

Also consider that hits probably aren't necessarily meant to mean that there's always a number of men in danger for each penetration. To make a sloppy analogy (for reason I can't think in tank terms with this), but if you hit one of those old tail-fin cars of the 50's, breaking one of the fins (from the side), the chances of it killing the whole crew would probably be pretty slim if it were AP ammo.



Capt. Pixel -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/17/2004 3:22:05 AM)

IME, it's the Soviet tanks that are the most likely to survive that up-close shot. I suspect it's because of their extremely sloped armor. If a T-34 gets adjacent to you, you have a real problem on your hands. Tigers, and even Pershings, will glance shots off a T-34s sloped armor.

Soviet armor also seems to be less susceptible to shots from higher altitudes. I've seen this over and over. Again, I believe it has something to do with High armor slope values.

These are just my observations. I have no hard evidence to back this up. [8D]



Charles2222 -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/17/2004 4:18:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Pixel

IME, it's the Soviet tanks that are the most likely to survive that up-close shot. I suspect it's because of their extremely sloped armor. If a T-34 gets adjacent to you, you have a real problem on your hands. Tigers, and even Pershings, will glance shots off a T-34s sloped armor.

Soviet armor also seems to be less susceptible to shots from higher altitudes. I've seen this over and over. Again, I believe it has something to do with High armor slope values.

These are just my observations. I have no hard evidence to back this up. [8D]


That's part of the calculation as to whether the round penetrates or not. If there are parts of every vehicle which may be considered as non-lethal to the crew, among other reasons, then that could account some of the lack of affect. It's true that the greater slope makes penetration more difficult (though just more diffiuclt to penetrate. If the penetration occurs, there isn't the slightest difference as to to damage said penetration acheives as far as I've heard), though IIRC PV said that there is a point where a higher slope degree works against actaully benefitting the AFV, but that 45mm T34 FH rating won't stop an 88L71 no matter what, unless of course one of the contingincies that affect many types of rounds should occur, such as hitting a 'tail-fin' or a very poor angle on the armor from the firing position to begin with.

There are instances where the AFV with the flat armor has 'more slope' than an AFV with good slope, such as it's rolling down a hill when hit. The normally flat FT would be somewhat sloped, whereas some of the sloped FT's would thereby be flat. I'm not saying the game makes that distinction, although it might, but considering how all the hill slopes are the same in degrees I'd doubt there's a difference in changing AFV slopes while on hill slopes.



String -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/18/2004 9:04:29 PM)

well i understand what you are saying. But the problem was that usually the longrange shots penetrated on 2 occasions out of 3 while the close range shots were 1 out of 4-5

Now i also noticed it when i in that scenario where you make a roadblock against the italians with germans (the germans have a lone 88 near a bridge) i took quite a few shots at those puny italian tanks and hit them at less than 300 metres and pathetically failed to penetrate.

Is the factor of overpenetration taken into account in the game=?



Belisarius -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/18/2004 9:56:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

well i understand what you are saying. But the problem was that usually the longrange shots penetrated on 2 occasions out of 3 while the close range shots were 1 out of 4-5

Now i also noticed it when i in that scenario where you make a roadblock against the italians with germans (the germans have a lone 88 near a bridge) i took quite a few shots at those puny italian tanks and hit them at less than 300 metres and pathetically failed to penetrate.

Is the factor of overpenetration taken into account in the game=?


Read the above posts. Yes it is.



Svennemir -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/20/2004 1:19:21 AM)

If you really want answers to all the questions, make a shooting range with the editor and do some tests.

I think I heard from one of the "big ones" (Vebber probably) that the formula is

total armour = thickness * cos(angle)^(-1.4)

..which probably counts for AP. But it's different for other kinds of ammo. HEAT, for instance, almost ignores slope in SPWAW (which doesn't really make sense. That's probably why close support tanks with HEAT are ridiculously effective, if you've ever wondered).

Of course there are a million other factors as well, such as shell diameter and stuff, but oh well.



Maciste -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/23/2004 3:38:25 AM)

I have another strange think to tell you:
Imagine... Italy, 1994. I'm playing with British, and I got tanks with 75mm guns, some CS tanks with 95 mm howitzers and some 17 pounder AT guns.
Suddenly, a roaring nightmare of Tigers coming to get me. Well... what happens (and I cannot understand) is that most of 17 pdr shots bounced off... but most of the 95mm howitzers shots destroyed them! ¿How? the CS tanks have only HE ammo! [X(]

P.S: All my crews were elite level



String -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/23/2004 6:50:31 AM)

IIRC the 95mm CS tanks have an HEAT round or two



Maciste -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/23/2004 7:36:29 PM)

The trouble is that they keep destroying TIGERS after my CS Tanks had run out of HEAT or AP ammo!. (by the way, I'm glad, they help a lot [:D])



RockinHarry -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/26/2004 3:09:37 PM)

Voriax mentioned it earlier, when in doubt of some armor penetration (or non penetration) occurences, enable combat logging! Hit "ALT-L" to enable this at scenario start and a "combat.txt" file is written into your Steel Panthers:WaW root folder. Open this in any text editor and check out particular content. Usually it should answer all questions on what happened in the game concerning armor penetration, hit angles and such.

It´s a good idea to copy/paste some content for your posting and THEN ask or discuss about it.

Could look like this:
Example for AP round hitting a target:

T-34 m.43 firing at PzKpfw-IVh at a range of 300 yds, ~using 76.2mm F-34~Hit Chance 94 percent
AP shell hit
pen = 181, base = 90
PRM = 1.04, HorAspect = -4.00, VerAspect = -1.00, BPF = 1.39
Temp1 = 1.00, Temp2 = 1.00, Temp3 = 0.07, Temp4 = 0.99
GeoArm = 33.09, BalArm = 32.06
skirt val = 10
diam = 75.00
base_arm_div_diam = 0.44
good quality armor mod = 0.81
adjusted arm value = 33
~PzKpfw-IVh is hit, SIDE HULL hit by 76.2mm F-34, using AP ammo, ~Pen 93, Armor 33, PzKpfw-IVh DESTROYED

Example for HVAP/APCR shot:

T-34 m.43 firing at PzKpfw-IVh at a range of 350 yds, ~using 76.2mm F-34~Hit Chance 93 percent
HVAP shell hit
pen = 231, base = 115
PRM = 0.94, HorAspect = 76.00, VerAspect = 11.00
Temp1 = 0.24, Temp2 = 0.98, Temp3 = 1.33, Temp4 = 1.29, Temp5 = 2.36
GeoArm = 84.21, BalArm = 303.72
skirt val = 10
diam = 75.00
base_arm_div_diam = 0.27
good quality armor mod = 0.70
adjusted arm value = 175
~PzKpfw-IVh is hit, REAR HULL hit by 76.2mm F-34, using APCR ammo, ~Ricochet!, Armor 175, No Effect

HEAT round example:

T-34 m.43 firing at PzKpfw-IVh at a range of 400 yds, ~using 76.2mm F-34~Hit Chance 86 percent
skirt val = 10
diam = 75.00
base_arm_div_diam = 0.27
good quality armor mod = 0.70
adjusted arm value = 25
~PzKpfw-IVh is hit, REAR HULL hit by 76.2mm F-34, using HEAT ammo, ~Pen 124, Armor 25, PzKpfw-IVh DESTROYED

Also HE shots hitting armor show different info in the combat.txt file.

Note: The above examples are taken from a test scenario where a T-34 is given some "extra" APCR and HEAT rounds just for testing purposes! These are not "out of the box" ammo loads.

I hope some of the armor buffs (or preferably PaulV) steps in and explains some of the formula and variables used.[:)]



chief -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/26/2004 8:34:02 PM)

Rocking Harry:
Could you please tell me EXACTLY when I should hit the alt+L key to get logging. I've tried it during a scenario but to no avail. Should I so it prior to setting up preferences or ??????????[&:]

TIA chief[&o]



Voriax -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/26/2004 9:22:25 PM)

Chief, just hit alt-l during the actual battle. You should see a pop-up with 'combat.txt logging 1" when it's on and 'combat.txt logging 0" when you turn it off. Oh and no caps, just plain 'l'. Maybe that got you confused.

Voriax



chief -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (4/27/2004 7:58:27 AM)

RH......Yeah I was hitting the "el" key not the "eye" Key.....should work now. Mucho Gracios Amigo.[&o][8D]



john g -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (5/7/2004 4:48:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Svennemir

If you really want answers to all the questions, make a shooting range with the editor and do some tests.

I think I heard from one of the "big ones" (Vebber probably) that the formula is

total armour = thickness * cos(angle)^(-1.4)

..which probably counts for AP. But it's different for other kinds of ammo. HEAT, for instance, almost ignores slope in SPWAW (which doesn't really make sense. That's probably why close support tanks with HEAT are ridiculously effective, if you've ever wondered).

Of course there are a million other factors as well, such as shell diameter and stuff, but oh well.


Actually it is a lot more complex than that. You have to figure the vertical component of the armor by figuring in the difference in height of the two vehicles along with a small random add or subtract to simulate that the ground is not flat like a pool table. Along with that you have horizontal angle to figure, if the target is directly facing the firing unit you get a zero here if it is at a severe angle it can be even more than the vertical add. Along with those there is a modification for armor quality, for warhead size vs real armor thickness and a random chance that you get a lucky shot that can reduce armor value (hitting vision ports etc). Then if you do manage to penetrate there is a check vs the survival value of the target to see if it even takes damage (small warheads vs high survival value often just do nothing).

To maximize your chances of killing a target, hit with a large warhead firing at a target that directly faces the firer, and from the same lvl if it has no slope to the armor or from above it it has sloped armor.

The worst case is against a target higher than the firer, very close and with a high angle off shot. You get several meter thick effective armor that way. Any AP or HVAP is going to bounce with that sort of shot.



Svennemir -> RE: Have I missed something about AT weapons? (5/11/2004 3:17:56 AM)

Yes, I know there are a billion jillion squared factors. It's not just the angle from the encyclopaedia.

But it's highly interesting that the power of the cosine is -1.4, not -1 which geometry would otherwise imply.

If you test (using combat logging) on flat ground at perpendicular angles etc., the above formula holds for AP ammunition, IIRC.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.015625