Jump to content

Kataphrakt

Members
  • Content Count

    265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kataphrakt

  1. If you have a technical source for this, could you send it my way? I just want to read it. I wish the devs would add in the additional .50 cal ammo mod mentioned that soviet pilots used after removing the .30cals. but that's because my gunnery accuracy is as good as a blind man.
  2. Didnt realize those had specs to them. I'll add them later.
  3. Added Hurricane II, Bf 109-G late w/WM-50, and C-47. Congratulations to the new record-holder for lightest wingload, the C-47! at a low 71kg/m^2, at a "30 minute" fuel load this drops to a mere 52 kg/m^2
  4. From a US study including tank casualties Operational Research in Northwest Europe, the Work of No. 2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group (PDF warning) page 205 (331 PDF), from the Tigers examined 80% were "brewed up", but they had an average of 3.25 penetrations (or 5.25 total hits) to be "brewed up". On average it took 2.6 penetrations to "knock out" the Tiger (4.2 hits). The quality of this data for the German tanks is not particularly great since it examines tanks pulled off the battlefield and which may have taken more hits after having been abandoned; however, only vehicles w
  5. Climbrate is already included for sea level, 3k, and 6k. Dive speed is dependent on the dive angle, with the max dive speed being the Vne speed which is already on the chart.
  6. There's a reason why modern tanker suits have aids to help lift a crewman out of a tank, but that is still not easy according to the few M1 Abrams crewmen i talked to. (driver being incredibly difficult!)
  7. Ouch, even the mid-level AI gives me a run for my money...
  8. Sorry about the late reply, but I do not have an updated version to compare mine to so I dont know what corrections were made.
  9. 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!
  10. 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 t
  11. 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 no
  12. 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
  13. I've mostly flown only on moscow, and it's the reason why i barely use rivers right now. They all look the same!
  14. 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.
  15. Reminds me of switching from ArmA 2's map to ArmA 3's map! It's a lot like playing in your backyard.
  16. 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.
  17. 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?
  18. 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.
  19. 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 dom
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. Though i cant remember the source, I have read that US shells had fusing issues during WWII. The source I had read was mostly talking about premature detonation of M61 and shells for the 75mm gun M3, it might have talked about the same for the 76mm M1 gun, and the 3-inch gun M7's shells but I cant remember. The source mentioned that crews had such problems with the fuses that they started removing them and the explosive filler from the shells. I would expect they likely also had issues with the 90mm shells fuses, or perhaps the habit carried over when the TD units were equipped with the 90mm.
×
×
  • Create New...