|
|
|
|
#1
10-27-2009, 01:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
A gun fires a KE Projectile with a maximum penetration, at range X, of 100mm. of vertical armour.
If the target has 50mm. of vertical armour and is at range X, the shot has a 50% chance of penetration and 50% chance of bouncing off, shattering on impact or becoming embedded in the armour. This is because muzzle velocity is not a constant but varies according to the burn rate of each individual shell's propellant as it travels along the barrel, the amount residue remaining in the barrel from previous shots (this can vary as each shot can either add more soot or scour the barrel. Fanatical cleaning of AT and tank gun barrels was more out of increasing the chances of survival than routine. Then there is the blemishes on each individual projectile which varies drag coefficents. Often wondered why tank crews polish AP shells.... now you know. In flight, air density between the gun and target varies with each shot and so this varies the final velocity of the shot on reaching the target. All this, generally falling under the "Chaos Theory" banner, when it comes to any hope of consistancy between shots, is why artillery shells fall into an average beaten zone and not land in the same shell hole. Back to the gun shooting at a target at range X. Asume that the range of all the test targets is range X, the same gun and projectile are used throughout. If the target has a horizonal armour thickness of 50mm. but is angled to 30 Degrees, the chances of the shell not penetrating the armour is increased to 68%, so now the shot has only a 22% chance of a penetration. If the target has a horizontal armour thickness of 50mm. but is angled to 60 Degrees, the chance of the shell not penetrating the armour is increased to 84%, so now the shot has only a 16% chance of penetration. If the target has a horizontal thickness ranging from 1mm. to anything, but is inclined to any angle from 72 Degrees to 90 Degrees, the chance of the shot not penetrating is now 100% and the chance of the shot pentrating is 0%. 72 Degrees is known as "The Skate Angle" and is what you need to achiece to skip stones across water, be grazed by a bullet, etc. For a home brew practical experiment, for those with access ti firearms, air or BB guns, try the following to confirm the above. Take a piece of thick hard wood that you know the gun won't easily penetrate and fire any number of shots at it. Go to the piece of wood and measure the depth of each shot and they'll all be different, even with air and compressed gas weapons. The difference between a AT weapon's maximum penetration and the average thickness of armour that its intended targets will have is refered to as the "Overkill Margin". This is always desired to give a somewhere between 60% and 70% chance of penetrating the average thickness of armour of known enemy AFVs, even today. German WW2 AT gun designers went for 80% to 90%, thus ensuring that their enemy's attempts at thickening armour of new AFVs would not be that effective. Further more, German AFV designers strove to make sure that German tanks would have sufficient frontal armour to give enemy AT weapons only a 30% or less chance of a first shot penetration, bearing in mind that the Germans meticuously tested every gun captured AT weapon and munition at the Rheim-Metal Borstig test facility and ranges. Upgrade in shell designs maintained this advantage throughout WW2. The Allies struggled to keep up with German AFV designs and upgrades. The Soviets had to be given Allied propellant technology as they were still using Blackpowder, with Celluose Accetate primer, as their propellants in everything from small arms to AT guns, hence the abismal performance of Soviet AT and tank guns during the 1941 invasion. During the Gulf and Iraq wars, the NATO 120mm. smoothbore tank gun had a better than 75% chance of a first round penetartion of the frontal 100mm. armour of the Iraqi T-54, T-55 and T-62 tanks at 2,000 metres. By comparison, the 115mm. guns of the Iraqi tanks had a less than 20% chance of penetrating the frontal armour of the US M1 Abrams tank and 0% chance of penetrating the even thicker frontal armour of the British Challenger II tank even at point blank range. The frontal armour of a Challenger II exceeds the point blank maximum penetration, with FSAPDS, of the 115mm. tank gun. Throw in superior fire control and sighting systems of the Coalition tanks and you have a very in even fight. Last edited by Panzergranate; 10-27-2009 at 02:03 AM. 
|
|
#2
10-27-2009, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
and this isnt about guns in general, this is about the 17 pdr and comet, i dont really care about US M1 Abram or the Challenger tank XD modern crap bores me. I prefer WW2 and ancient history, but yes, i know how a gun/cannon/AT gun works, You dont need to tell me all this, as i already know, but i didnt see what the point of putting it in my post would be. And this post is about men of war, Alot of these variables you listed arent in the game, like the residue left in the gun etc, or else it would be no fun.And, i have no idea what your talking about KE projectiles. That is not WW2, that is modern/future technology. All AT rounds use Kinetic energy, its that main thing that makes a AT round an AT round. The point of my post isnt to describe how an AT gun works. The point of my post is to point out how underpowered the 17 pdr is. When i said hitting the tiger on the nose of the hull, it didnt bounce off or anything. It hit, and disapeared.
|
|
#3
10-29-2009, 03:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 .You constantly refer to APCBC rounds, or the various others available to armies in WW2. Sure maybe they were capable of penetrating this or that armor, but they are not used in MoW. It's as simple as that. There are two types of shell (ignoring the different sizes) - One explodes on impact, one is designed to penetrate. That's it. The devs did not do all the calculations for different functions of different rounds. I think you are just taking the game a bit "too seriously" for what it is meant to be. Yes it's a great game, but it was never meant to be a purely realistic (or even historically accurate) game. This should of been very obvious when you saw the rather small battlefields. If it were meant to be real, we would be able to have tank battles that span the entire size of the map . But as it is, you need to get within 200 yards (or is it metres?) before any vehicle is capable of firing....Now as we all know, this is far from realistic.If you want a more realistic approach i highly suggest you give Theatre of War (1 or 2) a whirl, you will not be dissapointed...Except for the limited # of UK vehicles, but a user-made mod will fix that.  In ToW you have the choice of various rounds when controlling a tank/AT gun. As opposed to just choosing from two basic options. Not to mention the fact that in ToW, the battles take place at (more) realistic distances. They will also have different effects regarding the damage dealt, for example you may fail to damage the tank itself, but the shrapnel from the penetration of the round could still deal damage to the crew (which will make the tank less effective on the battlefield if it has a wounded/dead crew). Or perhaps load up APC rounds so the target's sloped armor is not as much of an issue. There are many more great features, most impressive being their attention to detail in terms of the units themselves. From memory, all(or atleast most) vehicles are made with the use of historically accurate blueprints. This includes damage they were capable of dealing, armor resistance capabilities, etc.. In conclusion, you are just playing the wrong game mate
Last edited by Nokturnal; 10-29-2009 at 04:08 AM.
|
|
#4
10-29-2009, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
ok?
im not buying another russian made game that favors the russians/germans cause i still think the makers of it purposly gimped uk and usa so noone will play them and olny play ussr and ger not that this game isnt good its very well done and polished but needs work simple as that
|
|
#5
10-29-2009, 11:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Hopefully he has more sense than you and actually researches the game before disregarding it based purely on who you think developed it.  The ToW games are actually made with their partners in the project, battlefront.com (Americans..). It is also more realistic than MoW is, which is also why i believe you will not see these change you keep requesting to be "fixed" in MoW. Why should they make one game more like the other? Clearly they wanted the two games to be separate for the different tastes in games people might have. Now as for the "gimped uk and usa" have you ever read a book about the war?..Y'know, actual facts as opposed to what your friends tell you? The reason you seem to think the Germans are over powered is because they infact WERE over powered. Seriously, pick up a book and read (or watch a documentary) about some of the battles and you'll be shocked that the Germans didn't win. Luckily Hitler made quite a few mistakes .I will agree that MoW missed out on few tanks here and there, but considering what other games (CoH and the sort) give us in terms of choice, MoW is still way ahead. They might even add some vehicles here and there in newer versions. But as far as the realism goes, i think if you want a more realistic experience you should try Theatre of War. It is as realistic as you are going to get from an RTS (aside from those hard-core hex turn-based ones that some old war-vets help make...but they are dull as dirt). Give the manual a read (on the Battlefront website) and you can see the thought they put in to making it realistic, ballistic trajectory, muzzle velocity, penetration values, types of damage inflicted, morale..I could go on.. Also the graphics are damn nice:     Unfortunately neither Battlefront or 1C are paying me for my advertising of their game, so i will stop posting here.
|
|
#6
11-04-2009, 05:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yes, the Germany were overpowered in the war. But UK didnt suck as bad as it does in the game. Basicly, the 17 pdr should be able to kill the tiger at the same range a tgier can kill a comet, if not more, (comet has 102 armor) Really, much of what your saying sounds like an educated guess about the game, and what the game designers had in mind. They did miss out on a few tanks for everyone. But they got all the important tanks for all the armys, except for the UK. If the Soveits get theyr KVs, IS1s and IS2s, the Germans get theyr Tigers and panthers, USA gets theyr Shermans and Pershings, i dont see why the UK didnt get the Comet tank. Germany was OP in the war, BUT in late 1944 and 1945, Russia, UK, and USA had the tanks to rival the Nazis Tiger and panther tanks: The A34 comet, the M24 Pershing, and the IS2. I wanted to say IS3, but im not quite sure if that was in the war, i dont think it was, as it was just a proto type at the time. In fact, the A34 comet tank was better then the tiger, and almost equal to the panther. Same armor as a tiger, with the speed of a firefly, (32 mph) and higher firepower then panther and tiger tanks. And, i think you need to pick up a book or read about the UK tanks in 1944, and theyr 17 pdr. Also, you might want to reasearch a bit more about this game before you post again. This game is indeed the right game for me, and i do highly think that they will add the Comet tank in future patches. Perhaps they will also increase the 17 pdr to balance the game.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
