Jump to content

Armour penetration modelling


Recommended Posts

Does IL2 tank crew model armour penetration performance at various ranges & angles?  And if so, would it be possible with an ingame penetration chart for the tank like the performance charts for aircraft in the description box ? :)

 

 

 

PS: I think I asked this sometime way in the past, but couldn't find the thread.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some basic specs in the loadout screen, but more detailed information with penetration values at various angles would be useful.
Knowing that a shell penetrates 84mm at 500m doesn't tell you much on how it will perform against the 45mm T-34 upper front plate at the same distance. (it won't go through, but you get the idea) Especially with, for example, the very misleading high pen of the APCR at 0°

On that matter having more details on armor values, with an armor viewer for example, would be very welcome. While you can also find those specs online it would be more comfortable to have them directly in-game, and alleviate some of the possible confusion (for example : does the Panzer 4 G has its original 50mm of hull plating, or the 30mm plate modification that came later, bringing it up to 80mm in some places)

Edited by Saedriss
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Saedriss said:

There are some basic specs in the loadout screen, but more detailed information with penetration values at various angles would be useful.
Knowing that a shell penetrates 84mm at 500m doesn't tell you much on how it will perform against the 45mm T-34 upper front plate at the same distance. (it won't go through, but you get the idea) Especially with, for example, the very misleading high pen of the APCR at 0°

If you know the stats on the armor converted to 240HB RHA equivalent against your shell, then the values are pretty good for most APCBC rounds (error being less than our ranging errors will likely be). So as an example, the T-34's 45mm frontal armor sloped at around 60 degrees against a 75mm projectile should have an effective thickness similar to that of a flat-on 122mm thick plate (I pulled these from WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery). If the devs gave us just this info for a few shell sizes (maybe 50mm, 75mm, 88mm, 128mm) it'd probably be more than enough for most of our needs. 

 

With APCR (and HEAT) being more finicky with angles, you might be better off not using it against targets which have extreme slopes like the T-34. Otherwise if we could get 45 degree data for the projectiles alongside the 0 degree data it should give us a good enough idea as to the capabilities of the shells too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saedriss said:

does the Panzer 4 G has its original 50mm of hull plating, or the 30mm plate modification that came later, bringing it up to 80mm in some places)

The 80mm thickness at the front hull were implented with the G, together with the longer gun barrel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'd really like to know the penetration performance of the shells ingame. That way it would also be easy to check wether there were any errors here, i.e. are certain guns & ammo under/overperforming. 

 

I feel the game needs a little more transparency in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12259-flight-and-damage-models-physics/?do=findComment&comment=885848

 

Im not so sure about penetration vs armor at angles. Maybe on some places (like the glacis plate). Or this was a bug.

Smoke and explosion was at the end of the left side of the Panther, but of course its impossible to say where exactly the round landed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

The 80mm thickness at the front hull were implented with the G, together with the longer gun barrel.

I don't think so.


As stated in the Panzer IV wikipedia page :

Quote

During its production run from March 1942 to June 1943, the Panzer IV Ausf. G went through further modifications, including another armor upgrade which consisted of a 30-millimetre (1.18 in) face-hardened appliqué steel plate welded (later bolted) to the glacis—in total, frontal armor was now 80 mm (3.15 in) thick.

At this point, it was decided that 50% of Panzer IV production would be fitted with 30 mm (1.18 in) thick additional armor plates.
[...]
In April 1943, the KwK 40 L/43 was replaced by the longer 75-millimetre (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/48 gun, with a redesigned multi-baffle muzzle brake with improved recoil efficiency.

It is a common misconception, and I only learnt about it recently.
The Panzer IV Ausf. F2 and G are the same tank, the "F2" got renamed to "G" three month into production. So a 50mm hull tank with the KwK 40 L/43.

The armor upgrades were added later, and not to all tanks, and the gun upgrade came the following year.

Edited by Saedriss
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Yeah I'd really like to know the penetration performance of the shells ingame. That way it would also be easy to check wether there were any errors here, i.e. are certain guns & ammo under/overperforming. 

 

I feel the game needs a little more transparency in this case.

I'd suspect this is good reason why the devs would not want to publish full penetration data. The second they publish a full table of it someone will pull out some "evidence" trying to show they're wrong and giving them more headaches. No doubt, much of this would come from something like the devs publishing data all at 90% probability criteria, then someone complaining about German guns under-performing according to 50% criteria data... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panthera said:

Yeah I'd really like to know the penetration performance of the shells ingame. That way it would also be easy to check wether there were any errors here, i.e. are certain guns & ammo under/overperforming. 

 

I feel the game needs a little more transparency in this case.

Just join one of the tank servers and feel that performance yourself))

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saedriss said:

As stated in the Panzer IV wikipedia page :

Quote

During its production run from March 1942 to June 1943, the Panzer IV Ausf. G went through further modifications, including another armor upgrade which consisted of a 30-millimetre (1.18 in) face-hardened appliqué steel plate welded (later bolted) to the glacis—in total, frontal armor was now 80 mm (3.15 in) thick.

At this point, it was decided that 50% of Panzer IV production would be fitted with 30 mm (1.18 in) thick additional armor plates.
[...]
In April 1943, the KwK 40 L/43 was replaced by the longer 75-millimetre (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/48 gun, with a redesigned multi-baffle muzzle brake with improved recoil efficiency.

German Wikipedia says from january 1943 on all G models were delivered with the 80mm front hull armor.

Additionally take a look in external camera at the front hull, you can clearly see the screwed on 30mm armor plate, and the specifications say it, that our Panzer IV has the 80mm front hull armor.

1 hour ago, Saedriss said:

the "F2" got renamed to "G" three month into production

Yes that is correct, however there were a few modifications in those tanks that were built as G models, compared to those that were originally built as F models. But all in all they are pretty much the same until the additional armor plate for the front hull was introduced and a bit later the longer barreled main gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, back on topic :

 

1 hour ago, Kataphrakt said:

I'd suspect this is good reason why the devs would not want to publish full penetration data. The second they publish a full table of it someone will pull out some "evidence" trying to show they're wrong and giving them more headaches. No doubt, much of this would come from something like the devs publishing data all at 90% probability criteria, then someone complaining about German guns under-performing according to 50% criteria data... 

How about no ?

I'd rather know the values and know what to expect from my shots, whatever said values are, instead of having to guess each time.
Especially since the game currently doesn't seem to have different visual effect differentiating a shell penetrating from a shell blowing up on armor (for APHE rounds)

Edited by Saedriss
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2020 at 10:51 PM, Kataphrakt said:

I'd suspect this is good reason why the devs would not want to publish full penetration data. The second they publish a full table of it someone will pull out some "evidence" trying to show they're wrong and giving them more headaches. No doubt, much of this would come from something like the devs publishing data all at 90% probability criteria, then someone complaining about German guns under-performing according to 50% criteria data... 

 

No reason for that as there exists a publication which compares all the guns against the same type target (steel type & hardness etc) at all angles based on all the evidence & science available. The title is WWII Ballistics: Armor & Gunnery  by Robert D. Livingston & Lorrin Rexford Bird.  

 

If the developers simply choose to use this publication as their basis, and make that clear from the beginning, then I think most people should be satisfied.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I advise all tank enthusiasts to read the original manuals for the German tanks of the Second World War. I have found two versions, for the Panther tank and for the tiger. Here are the links 
https://archive.org/details/Generalinspekteur-der-Panzertruppen-Panther-Fibel/mode/2up
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/Merkblatt/Die_Tigerfiebel_Handbuch_des_deutschen_Tiger_Panzers_.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Or maybe the devs consider part of the DM properties their trade secret and don‘t want to disclose the fruits of their research to competing developers.

 

Penetration figures are hardly a trade secret, because if they are then by definition they're wrong :) (It is only in terms of how the simulation program manages to match the real life figures which can be considering a trade secret, but not the figures themselves)

 

In other words a sim is supposed to mimic reality as close as possible within the constraints of what the technology they're working with allows for. So for weapon performance that means getting as close to real life documented figures as possible, be it aircraft performance, machine gun/cannon cyclic rates or in this case AP shell penetration performance.

 

A sim should never attempt to make up its own figures and then refer to them as "trade secrets", cause at that point the "sim" placard is no longer warranted and we're instead moving into fantasy land (not saying this is what 777 is doing btw!). Hence the only logical reasons for not wanting to disclose penetration figures is either because you're not (yet) confident in their veracity or if you downright know they're not even close (and perhaps don't intend them to be). That said the IL2 devs could simply still be working on a proper penetration mechanic, using a placeholder in the meantime, hence they might not see a reason for a penetration chart for as long as they know penetration mechanics aren't approaching historical/physical accuracy.

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites

All simulations are approximations. And no, they aren't necessarily "supposed to mimic reality as close as possible within the constraints of what the technology they're working with allows for". Not unless they are being funded by DARPA. This is entertainment software, constrained by limited funding (amongst other things), and the degree to which armour penetration modelling is simulated is down to the developers discretion. If there is a significant issue with it, present the evidence to the developers: they are under no obligation whatsoever to disclose every detail (or any detail) of how it works, just so people can argue that they've got it wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know my post could be interpreted so incorrectly.

 

Look if you're marketing your product as a simulator you are ofcourse obligated in your effort to come as close to reality as the funds and tech you have available allow for. Not sure how anyone can even argue against that? It's whole point of the "simulator".

 

Now that isn't to say that the devs HAVE to make everything "100% accurate or it's unacceptable!", ofcourse not, only that they have to come as close to historical/physical accuracy as they feel able to achieve, and that means both in terms of available time, money & tech. No one is asking them to perform any superhuman feat or blow any budgets.

 

Now if you cannot agree with this then I' m sorry we will just have to agree to disagree.

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I should probably make clear that I didn't intend to "call out" the devs, I merely wish to know what type of experience TC is meant to be, i.e. is it supposed to be a realistic WW2 tank simulator? (which IMO seems to make the most sense based on the amount of effort they put into the interiors) Or is it intended more as a fun to play ground forces add on to the flight simulator part, giving fliers some human controlled ground units to shoot at?

 

Either is ofcourse completely OK, it would just be nice to know exactly what TC is supposed to be :) I

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, DetCord12B said:

 

Nope. Steel Beasts Pro as well as a game that's a decade old (Steel Fury - K42) feature a ballistic simulation that's unparalleled in its hyper-realism (and not abstract), as do the other recent Graviteam games. These simu-chanics are so realistic, so spot on, that they've been contracted by the DoD, MoD, MdE, BMVg, and others to create military AFV sims for training purposes. That's pretty damned good for a 3-man programming team...

 

Wasn't talking of those games. I was talking of Il2. Either way all of these things are just games and cannot modeled things 100% realistically.

As long as TC functions and gives the impression of being accurate/realistic I really don't care if it's true to life.

If the penetration or ballistics match documents then I'm good, it's very easy to test these things as well.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Panthera said:

Look if you're marketing your product as a simulator you are ofcourse obligated in your effort to come as close to reality as the funds and tech you have available allow for.

 

You are under no obligation whatsoever other than giving back investors money with a profit. As you stated, it is work to compile all DM data on a vehicle. Work that has to be funded and that should return profit. Presenting the whole of it openly just makes a huge present for competing developers and thus you’re giving up an advantage your product had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why the devs should have to show us anything. All of the data needed to test if the game is accurate if public knowledge. Just look up some ballistic test/charts or read some books/documents and see if it matches in-game. If it matches close to reality then it really doesn't matter how it's all coded and functioning underneath the hood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ZachariasX said:

 

You are under no obligation whatsoever other than giving back investors money with a profit. As you stated, it is work to compile all DM data on a vehicle. Work that has to be funded and that should return profit. Presenting the whole of it openly just makes a huge present for competing developers and thus you’re giving up an advantage your product had.

 

Again by providing a penetration table for your simulator (if it is meant to be that mind you) you're not presenting anything not already available to everyone on here, as the penetration performance of these guns is very well documented. 

 

I already provided one reputable source they could comfortably lean upon as a reference, one they can cite as their main source for anyone wanting to know to what lengths they're going in terms of simulating the guns vs armor aspect of WW2 tank warfare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I merely wish to know what type of experience TC is meant to be, i.e. is it supposed to be a realistic WW2 tank simulator?

Everything we know about TC points toward that. And it is my impression they they do a fine job, while leaving room for constant improvement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I don't see why the devs should have to show us anything. All of the data needed to test if the game is accurate if public knowledge. Just look up some ballistic test/charts or read some books/documents and see if it matches in-game. If it matches close to reality then it really doesn't matter how it's all coded and functioning underneath the hood.

 

Well that is exactly what I've been saying, we don't need to know the coding that is taking place to make the penetration performance match reality, and by providing a penetration table for the guns ingame they are in no way revealing that either. All the penetration table is there for is to let players know the performance of their guns vs armor ingame, and wether or not said penetration performance is close to reality or not.

 

 

Edited by Panthera
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Panthera said:

anyone wanting to know to what lengths they're going in terms of simulating the guns vs armor aspect of WW2 tank warfare.

Probably as far as the project funding through sales allows.

 

But it‘s is just grand bringing up good data here. It can only help. Maybe the devs are aware of this info, maybe not. Interesting data it is either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Well that is exactly what I've been saying, we don't need to know the coding that is taking place to make the penetration performance match reality, and by providing a penetration table for the guns ingame they are in no way revealing that either. All the penetration table is there for is to let players know the performance of their guns vs armor ingame, and wether or not said penetration performance is close to reality or not.

 

 

But you don't need a penetration table from the devs because you can get one from real test and data. Just compare the real data to what you see/experience in-game and you'll be able to see if it's acting in a realistic way or not.

 

If you know your target and what ammo and gun you're using you have all the necessary in-game data needed to run test. Just look up your targets armor values and your guns ballistics data and you're set.

 

Also, iirc devs already list the penetration values for different ammo/gun types in the game. Just hover over the ammo when selecting it in the mod screen.

Edited by Legioneod
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panthera said:

I should probably make clear that I didn't intend to "call out" the devs, I merely wish to know what type of experience TC is meant to be, i.e. is it supposed to be a realistic WW2 tank simulator?

 

I think it is quite clear. The store page describes it as follows:

Quote

A new ground-breaking tank simulator by the team that brought you IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Stalingrad

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...