Jump to content

Kataphrakt

Members
  • Content Count

    256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

102 Excellent

About Kataphrakt

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lol, i've done plenty of experiments in engineering where we only took 4 data points because they were "enough" to curve fit the data. Problem is that you could curve fit about 5 different things with an R^2 of 0.99, none of them being the actual equation!
  2. This is the kind of table that i think is reasonable for IL-2 to add (though just with different distances to be relevant to our combat situations/WWII distances). 4 data points for each angle is nowhere near enough for someone unscrupulous to get a "close-enough" model with a curve-fit. I have not noticed much of a shaking effect when being hit by projectiles in-game. I have often heard being in a tank struck by projectiles described as a "significant emotional event" -- A large part of why the tanks which fired first tended to have a significant upper-hand in combat. Really this makes sense because a 76mm (7kg) shell traveling at even half its muzzle velocity (395 m/s) still has an energy of 546 KJ, that's equivalent to a two-ton truck traveling at 24m/s (86 kph, 53 Mph), or a 35-ton tank traveling at 18 kph. Yes, if a 35-ton tank slams into another 35-ton tank at 18kph it's going to shake some things around, and remember that tanks are also mounted on big springs. The amount of this energy a tank must deal with depends on the angle it is struck at, larger angles requiring less energy to push the round away than a flat-hit on a plate.
  3. Picking your battles is a skill that seems needed in just about everything. While i'm by far still a rookie at IL-2, I was significantly less of a rookie at ArmA, where I had "pick your battles" mercilessly pounded into me (Flashbacks to Dshk sounds and the screams of people over teamspeak). It also goes in-hand with knowing when to retreat, something I have yet to figure out since whenever I decide to retreat it tends to be too late. Recognizing our mistakes is probably one of the best tips. Personally in IL-2 i'm still at the point of knowing i'm doing something wrong, but not knowing what it is.
  4. If you're talking about the 8,8 gun, then yes. If you're talking the 7,5 guns then no. Remember that the resistance of the frontal armor on an M4 is still greater than that of a Pz IV. If the 7,5 guns are supposed to deal with tanks having equivalent armor protection to the Pz IV, and work against the Pz IV's armor, but not the M4's armor, then the problem is specific to a fuse which is incapable of triggering without High-hardeness armor, and not necessarily due to over penetration. As we can see, fusing is rather difficult to get right as the US and Germany had issues with proper fusing. If the shells fused fine against a T-34 (having similar effective armor thickness to an M4), then it would be consistent because German AFV Rolled plate (@80mm) had hardness of around 308 BHN, Soviet being ~340 BHN, and US being ~250 BHN.
  5. I've mostly flown only on moscow, and it's the reason why i barely use rivers right now. They all look the same!
  6. Great points. IIRC for penetration data at most crews might get information stating at what ranges they could engage targets at and defeat their armor. For the rest of the information, if the devs have public-domain versions of actual tank manuals, it would be great to see portions of those (anything applicable to the game, i dont need 30 pages of how to tension tracks...) giving us what the sight specs are and such.
  7. Reminds me of switching from ArmA 2's map to ArmA 3's map! It's a lot like playing in your backyard.
  8. Strange, I havent played around enough to have run into that, i think the second i take control of a gun i turn off my trackir.
  9. I've got a question i'd like piggyback onto this: If you have say a MP crew with one player in the gun, and one as the commander, who has command over the tank driver?
  10. During the interwar period the US invested a lot of time looking into this, specifically adjusting their tank armor to reduce the spalling caused by penetrating and non-penetrating hits. If you have over-hardened armor you end up with vastly more spalling than an equivalent strength of softer armor. US WWII Armor has to get to about -40 degrees before spalling and cracking like German armor did.
  11. That is correct that they cannot claim IP on someone else's data that they use in-game; however, were the game to be coded so "IF gun X fired round Y at section Z of tank A at distance of B with angle of C, THEN Penetrate armor", the number of conditional statements would be absurd. What the devs have to do to make the system even possible to program is to generate equations to fit the real-life data into the game. That equation that they have to generate? That's something we can call IP. It takes a lot of time and research to make it, and though it derives from sources probably in public domain, we have plenty of history books which draw all their info the same yet are IP themselves. Claiming this is insulting to the game developers, and neglects that the penetration mechanics cannot work just as a table of dumb-data, they have to work continuously for a proper simulation. This isnt something where the game just runs if statements to see if the conditions match up with test data. Go find yourself a copy of WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery to see just how complex the whole operation is of getting all that WWII data into a format where gun performance can be compared. From the game dev's model of penetration, they could put in various values and generate large tables of penetration performance; however, the problem there is that if they were to do so i could plug that same data into an excel document, ask excel to curve-fit the data, and now i have a not-quite as good armor penetration system for my own game at the expense of only a few minutes of data entry! On top of that, I not only have a relatively accurate penetration model, but I also have it using an equation that is legally distinct enough as long as no one can prove how exactly I arrived at my equations.
  12. We do have a bit of locking wonkeyness in aircraft. Once you pick up a gun track IR stops working both in tanks and aircraft. I tried this in the A-20 a few weeks ago, and with the M4. It would be nice to be able to use track IR while controlling the gun, especially on tanks with periscopes for the gunner to look out.
  13. This is why one needs to be careful when examining WWII sources. Reports from people in the field are rarely dependable for technical purposes as the typical grunt does not have a degree in statistics, nor engineering. If any field report is treated as correct until it is proven incorrect we would believe the hundreds of reports of US tankers destroying "Tigers" with 75mm gunned M4s, or we'd believe the German sources stating that no tanks were lost, then suddenly later stating that an infantry platoon destroyed hundreds of tanks! (due to the quirks of Germany reporting tank "losses" when the tank was unrecoverable). We might also believe Cooper's assertions that the M4 was named the "Sherman" as some "Union Conspiracy."
  14. One of the tricky things with the complexity of armor penetration is how the effective thickness of an armor changes based off the ratio of armor thickness to projectile diameter (T/D ratio). WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunner provides great information on the mechanics of this if one can get their hands on it. While I do regard this as the end-all-be-all for available armor penetration sources, it does have limitations. Mainly that it uses outdated DeMarrie equations and that the copies which one can obtain now are old editions often without the 10+ pages of corrections that the later editions came with. Short of an updated version of this source, comparisons of various shot-testing results is an exercise in futility since most countries used different criteria for their penetration figures, testing different probabilities of penetration on different slopes and with different types of armor. I'd like to see a few stats on the ammo specifying the penetration at a few ranges. Gut instinct says 100m, 500m, 1000m to give a decent range of capabilities for both the long-range guns, and for the shorter-range guns, though a few intermediary points may be needed. Along with the 0 degree performance, it would also be nice to see the performance against a 30 or 45 degree slope. For specifying the armor, it becomes a bit more complex since as the T/D ratio the effective thickness of the armor from slope decreases. The table below shows a good example of this. Because of this, the devs would have to report effective thickness of the sloped armor against probably 75mm, 88mm, and 128mm shells to give us a good idea of the armor (or they could do 75mm, 90mm, 100mm, 130mm to give close-enough values, since a few mm of shell diameter doesnt make a huge difference). The unfortunate result of this is that it may expose more of the inner-workings of the dev's armor system than they would like to As far as i have read, the Russian translated sources for shot-testing German armor tend to agree with the results of US, and Brittish shot-testing of German armor. The source I mentioned before WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunner has a section comparing US shot-testing with 122mm APBC against RHA and the theoretical performance of that against FHA then compares it to the Russian shot-testing of the same 122mm gun and shell against FHA and noting that the data is consistent. Regardless of sources at the moment, more testing would be required to better determine if the armor system is right or not. We would need to know precisely where shells struck targets and at what range, and which angles.
  15. Not to argue -- as i have read multiple things agreeing with the inability of human eyes to see "in 3D" beyond around 7-8 meters -- Just to give a fun-fact: some people do have "funky" eyes where their individual eyesight is worse than when both eyes are open. As someone who has such "funky" eyes, looking through binoculars with one eye closed provides worse image quality than looking through with both eyes open. Because of this when i go shooting i find scopes up to 4x to be almost useless compared to just looking through the sights with both eyes open.
×
×
  • Create New...