Q and A with the team

[LachenKrieg]

@Regingrave I am planning to reinstall the game to test it sometime over the next couple of weeks, but have a few question to help guide me with the test, or to know if it’s even worth doing.

 

In reference to your previous responses, you said videos don’t show how much of the crew survived and that the debug info you looked at showed vulnerability is there.

 

While its true most of the videos posted to this forum didn’t show actual crew damage, does knowing the amount of crew damage matter if the tank in question is still driving around shooting after being penetrated in vital areas?

 

The question for me is not about whether the Sherman’s crew are vulnerable, it is more about the unrealistic amounts of penetrating hits required to reach vulnerability. Are you satisfied with the way damage is being simulated for all vehicles, because I was not before I uninstalled?

 

Based on tank damage from a 152 mm artillery shelling, you stated that it should be proof enough to stop anyone from questioning whether a HE shell can disable a tanks gun. The question I have is whether that image/video is a fair comparison when discussing damage from the Sherman’s gun? I doubt the 75 mm gun in the Sherman could duplicate the amount of damage seen in that video, and I think it is being disingenuine to use the video as a basis for the Sherman’s super ability in Tank Crew.

 

In the context of how accurate damage is being simulated in Tank Crew, it matters IMO how the different vehicles compare to each other in terms of the number of hits required to knock a gun out/kill the crew. An HE shell from a Sherman should do less damage than an HE shell from a Tiger. A Tiger also has an outer sleeve protecting the base of its gun.

 

In reference to your point about factors affecting penetration/ricochet, exaggerated expectations, and what has been shown to be unproven, I never said the Tiger’s gun could penetrate anything.

 

There is real photographic evidence of a Sherman’s armor being penetrated by angled shots. But even without a track, it was clearly shown in the test video I referenced that it was made straight on from 500 m, and that 25% of the shots bounced.

 

Again, my question goes back to the accuracy of the DM in Tank Crew? The same poster who showed a Sherman bouncing shots from a Tiger also showed a Sherman knocking out a Tiger with an HE shell. These are the scenarios IMO that have been left unproven!

 

I understand the teams need for a track to test and debug any given situtation, but I also hope you understand as an end-user the experience I get from the software is what matters most to me. Shooting a Sherman straight on from 500 m is not a scenario I expect to see 25% of my shots bounce. Can you tell me whether or not this issue has ever been seriously looked into/addressed in Tank Crew, or should I expect to see the same behavior under the current patch?

[No_Face]

Well, yesterday in multiplayer I neutralized a Sherman at 1 000m with my panzer...III...L... ?

[Regingrave-]

Do a test, if something wents wrong — record a track. End-user experience cannot be a subject of the bug report.

As for now, we're satisfied with the fidelity of our tank damage system, there are no known bugs and no changes are planned for it.

[Voidhunger]

1 hour ago, Regingrave said:

Do a test, if something wents wrong — record a track. End-user experience cannot be a subject of the bug report.

As for now, we're satisfied with the fidelity of our tank damage system, there are no known bugs and no changes are planned for it.

Ok and what about the constant explosion when the 75mm round penetrate the armor of the Tiger, Panther and the Ferdinand? Is it ok? There are multiple accounts of these tanks surviving penetrations without catastrophic explosion of the whole tank. Even if you try to shoot to empty space without ammunition boxes(which Hans provided in one thread) those tanks always explode. Thats not realistic.

[Regingrave-]

11 минут назад, Voidhunger сказал:

Ok and what about the constant explosion when the 75mm round penetrate the armor of the Tiger, Panther and the Ferdinand? Is it ok? There are multiple accounts of these tanks surviving penetrations without catastrophic explosion of the whole tank. Even if you try to shoot to empty space without ammunition boxes(which Hans provided in one thread) those tanks always explode. Thats not realistic.

If you can support any of those claims with tracks and related historic materials — you should make a valid bug report.

 

I just did a test in QM and here's the result — a Tiger, loaded full with HE shells, penetrated by Sherman's 75 mm APHE right into the driver's visor. No catastrophic explosion.

Скрытый текст

 

Another clear example — penetration right through the frontal armor, crew dead, but no explosion either.

Скрытый текст

 

[LachenKrieg]

1 hour ago, No_Face said:

Well, yesterday in multiplayer I neutralized a Sherman at 1 000m with my panzer...III...L... ?

Thanks for your input here No_Face. Depending on where you hit your opponent, that would normally be a really hard thing to do in a Pz III vs Sherman. I can't honestly recommend this title as a WWII tank simulator to anyone and feel good about it like I once did.

 

1 hour ago, Regingrave said:

Do a test, if something wents wrong — record a track. End-user experience cannot be a subject of the bug report.

As for now, we're satisfied with the fidelity of our tank damage system, there are no known bugs and no changes are planned for it.

I will do that as soon as I can, but while I agree user experience might have limited value in terms of your work, it has a lot more value then you seem to give credit for.

 

Most game developers incorporate user experience heavily into their development process.

 

But regardless of track files, the game has to also be able to simulate basic things like when you strike the front armor of a Sherman straight on at 500 m with the Tiger's gun. When considering some of the videos posted to this forum alone @Regingrave, it gets a little hard to believe something like spalling is modeled when we see multiple penetration marks that have no visible effect. I agree there can be numerous factors affecting the outcome of an armored engagement, but there is also a point where things can start to get a little too obvious.

 

But as I said, I will try and test the various vehicles and get back to you here when I do.  

10 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

Ok and what about the constant explosion when the 75mm round penetrate the armor of the Tiger, Panther and the Ferdinand? Is it ok? There are multiple accounts of these tanks surviving penetrations without catastrophic explosion of the whole tank. Even if you try to shoot to empty space without ammunition boxes(which Hans provided in one thread) those tanks always explode. Thats not realistic.

Or things like consistently hitting the Panther's shot trap under the mantlet from 1200 m. Not sure if this has changed, but if you were facing one of the SU's and you couldn't put him to bed within 2 to 3 shots, you were almost guaranteed toast in the Panther.

 

Its funny because I get the feeling that if this was a big enough group of pilots complaining about why their 109 sputters a bit too much in sunny weather, they would have probably had a completely reworked engine model by now. But here I guess its just us tanks?

5 minutes ago, Regingrave said:

If you can support any of those claims with tracks and related historic materials — you should make a valid bug report.

 

I just did a test in QM and here's the result — a Tiger, loaded full with HE shells, penetrated by Sherman's 75 mm APHE right into the driver's visor. No catastrophic explosion.

  Hide contents

 

Another clear example — penetration right through the frontal armor, crew dead, but no explosion either.

  Hide contents

 

Well that is encouraging, because I what I was seeing before uninstalling was pretty close to what Voidhunger experienced. But thanks for showing that.

[No_Face]

17 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

Depending on where you hit your opponent, that would normally be a really hard thing to do in a Pz III vs Sherman.

I know their weaknesses. ?

[LukeFF]

41 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

Thanks for your input here No_Face. Depending on where you hit your opponent, that would normally be a really hard thing to do in a Pz III vs Sherman. I can't honestly recommend this title as a WWII tank simulator to anyone and feel good about it like I once did.

 

You're just going to take his word for it without doing tests of your own or without a track being provided?

 

42 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

Its funny because I get the feeling that if this was a big enough group of pilots complaining about why their 109 sputters a bit too much in sunny weather, they would have probably had a completely reworked engine model by now. But here I guess its just us tanks?

 

That's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one.

[Voidhunger]

Ok this is my last post on this issue.

I have tried many times (right now also several times in qmb) to survive penetrating hits to the sides of Panther, Tiger or Elephant.

Its almost impossible - to be fair I once survived hit from the T34 somewhere lower to the the front wheel of the Panther and the crew bailed out.

 

Its possible to survive hits(two I think) to the engine.

 

I have also tried to shoot many many times to the empty spaces without ammunition and there is always explosion. From 75,76,152 rounds.

 

but maybe Im extremely unlucky.

 

I dont have time to gather evidence, but there is the old well known video of the Cologne panther and the crew bailed out after it was penetrated 3 times by the 90mm rounds.

Only after the 3 rounds ammunition started to explode. This is impossible to survive in game.

 

 

 

 

[No_Face]

16 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

You're just going to take his word for it without doing tests of your own or without a track being provided?

Are you calling me a liar?

[LukeFF]

43 minutes ago, No_Face said:

Are you calling me a liar?

 

Nope, not at all. It's just that I'm always skeptical of claims like this that aren't presented without any supporting evidence. I've seen it here and elsewhere, too many times to count. You'd be amazed at the number of "that's just not possible" claims made on Combat Mission Battlefront forums about why Tank A shouldn't have been able penetrate Tank B, etc. There, as here, the response is always the same: upload a track file so we can all see for ourselves what's going on...and repeat that test multiple times to see whether there's an established pattern or merely an outlier.

[moustache]

an example of the difference between simulation and reality: shooting under the turret of the panther
>in game, we get a "catastrophic" explosion
> in reality, after a lapse of time (which varies on other videos, a few seconds...) the ammunition ignites and the pressure creates more jets of flame...

[No_Face]

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

It's just that I'm always skeptical of claims like this that aren't presented without any supporting evidence.

In fact, there is nothing surprising since the Pz III L pierces 53mm of armor at 1000m (APHE) and the Sherman has 38mm of armor on the sides and 51mm on the front.

 

It is therefore normal that the Pz III L pierces the flanks and it is also normal that it is difficult to pierce from the front, since the Sherman's armor is inclined.

 

In fact, my comments simply prove that the ballistics are good and coherent (in my eyes).

 

It may not be perfect, as mentioned by the different speakers in this topic, but for me it is not ridiculous.

 

[Regingrave-]

In Cologne first and second shots were APHE, one hit the turret, maiming the crew and the second hit the side, then exploded in the engine compartment. Third shot was an APCR, that hit ammo rack, which caused internal fire from the charges rather than explosion of shells.

 

None of this material leads to conclusion that any of the mentioned tanks should survive APHE hit into a side full of ammo racks.

[Lofte]

17 minutes ago, Regingrave said:

None of this material leads to conclusion that any of the mentioned tanks should survive APHE hit into a side full of ammo racks.

We talk about crew.

[Voidhunger]

Problem is that side of the Panther, Tiger and Ferdinand have ammo racks everywhere from the bottom to the top (except the engine) in game and so in my testing you will explode everytime.

Also Im not saying that the tank must survive. Wounded or dead crew, internal fire like in other tanks in game  but not catastrofic explosion everytime.

I have never experienced internal fire in the Panther or Tiger.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Voidhunger

[moustache]

27 minutes ago, Regingrave said:

None of this material leads to conclusion that any of the mentioned tanks should survive APHE hit into a side full of ammo racks.

But who said that? I'm talking about the catastrophic explosions... of course the encounter of a 75mm shell (90mm here) with Hans' body will be fatal... (I'm not stupid either...)

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, No_Face said:

In fact, there is nothing surprising since the Pz III L pierces 53mm of armor at 1000m (APHE) and the Sherman has 38mm of armor on the sides and 51mm on the front.

 

It is therefore normal that the Pz III L pierces the flanks and it is also normal that it is difficult to pierce from the front, since the Sherman's armor is inclined.

 

In fact, my comments simply prove that the ballistics are good and coherent (in my eyes).

 

It may not be perfect, as mentioned by the different speakers in this topic, but for me it is not ridiculous.

 

 

Fair enough, thanks.

[MisterSmith]

Let's be careful with confusing the word "often" with "always." We are on some thin ice here and FM/DM claims MUST be supported by tracks and/or dedicated/documented/REPEATABLE testing. Not locking or headhunting at the moment but stick to the rules regarding claims.

 

Smith

[ShampooX]

19 hours ago, Regingrave said:

In Cologne first and second shots were APHE, one hit the turret, maiming the crew and the second hit the side, then exploded in the engine compartment. Third shot was an APCR, that hit ammo rack, which caused internal fire from the charges rather than explosion of shells.

The entire crew escaped and some of them were even interviewed for the documentary that came out about it a few years ago.  There was no shot to the turret as post action pics show only a single hole in the side-hull and all the spare linkage mounted on the turret still in tact.

 

But thats not my point - a couple days ago on FVP, my Tiger got one-shotted by a Sherman at about 500m - from the front.  It was APHE because I saw the round come in.  This has never happened before.  I thank you guys for doing the testing because it seems like something might have changed.

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by ShampooActual

[Voidhunger]

4 minutes ago, ShampooActual said:

The entire crew escaped and some of them were even interviewed for the documentary that came out about it a few years ago.  There was no shot to the turret as post action pics show only a single hole in the side-hull and all the spare linkage mounted on the turret still in tact.

 

there were three penetration, it can be clearly seen in the video. Flames are visible through the holes.

But point was, that even if the ammo catches fire, crew can escape and those catastrophic explosion what we have in some German tanks were not so common.

[No_Face]

26 minutes ago, ShampooActual said:

But thats not my point - a couple days ago on FVP, my Tiger got one-shotted by a Sherman at about 500m - from the front.  It was APHE because I saw the round come in.  This has never happened before.  I thank you guys for doing the testing because it seems like something might have changed.

500m from the front ? Don't you mean 50m from the side?

Edited October 18, 2022 by No_Face

[Arditi]

the instantaneous explosions are somewhat exaggerated, the most common thing would be for the tank to catch fire and burn little by little, and after a while if it is generalized it can explode

[[SN]_Reaper_]

47 минут назад, Arditi сказал:

the instantaneous explosions are somewhat exaggerated, the most common thing would be for the tank to catch fire and burn little by little, and after a while if it is generalized it can explode

 

I like the way it's done in the game Steel Fury. This game is already 15 years old, but I still play it. And the community supports the game by releasing addons.

[Voidhunger]

2 hours ago, No_Face said:

500m from the front ? Don't you mean 50m from the side?

From the 300m right in the middle of the front hull 100m thick

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/80959-q-and-a-with-the-team/?do=findComment&comment=1222873

[No_Face]

24 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

From the 300m right in the middle of the front hull 100m thick

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/80959-q-and-a-with-the-team/?do=findComment&comment=1222873

I'm sorry but I don't understand your answer to my question to ShampooActual.
What should I read/see in the link you put?

[Voidhunger]

7 minutes ago, No_Face said:

I'm sorry but I don't understand your answer to my question to ShampooActual.
What should I read/see in the link you put?

I thought you was surprised that he was one-shoted in the tiger by the sherman.

So its possible at least from 300m. Second picture from the developer.

[No_Face]

Oh okay, no, I'm not surprised. I just think ShampooActual's comments are the perfect example of why we should be wary of veteran testimonials and how it can be misleading to rely solely on them to make claims.

 

Here ShampooActual thinks he was killed by a Sherman head-on shot at 500m. I think he is talking about the October 15, 2022 game on FVP where he first thought he was killed by a Churchill. If we are talking about that game and if the Tiger's number on ShampooActual is 911, then he is wrong.

 

And that's very interesting because for him, the ballistics are wrong because of this death and that's the message I'm trying to get across "Be careful, before you question this or that, make sure you've made the right observations and have the right information".

 

For the "veteran" side, his message shows that someone can think they are telling the truth honestly, without any ulterior motive, but still be wrong.
That's why veteran testimonials should be taken with a grain of salt. Their testimonies bring elements but one must always try to cross-check them with other sources to confirm them.

 

The data alone, those of the engineers, are not necessarily more valuable because it is well known that there can be differences between theory and practice.

What I'm trying to say is that sometimes, on the forum, some people take ONE element to make a generalization and that's why there is a "conflict" with the developers.

 

I'm not saying that bugs are impossible and that everything works perfectly. I'm just saying that we shouldn't get carried away and assert this or that on a weak basis.

 

Sometimes the devs announce certain things and they are right not to deny it, they have more data than us. Sometimes users are right when they say there is a problem with something, usually they can prove it with several sources.

 

So you have to understand the devs when they say "Without videos, without files, we can't take your word for it, especially when on our side, our tests don't show anything abnormal".

[ShampooX]

11 hours ago, No_Face said:

500m from the front ? Don't you mean 50m from the side?

No,  Ask Mr.WaterBottle he was the Sherman.  Also Jackman and Balego they were there.

8 hours ago, No_Face said:

Here ShampooActual thinks he was killed by a Sherman head-on shot at 500m. I think he is talking about the October 15, 2022 game on FVP where he first thought he was killed by a Churchill. If we are talking about that game and if the Tiger's number on ShampooActual is 911, then he is wrong.

How am I wrong?  Do you have Video?  You have 6 hours of playing time on FVP with zero kills - zero anything.  This should be good.................

[No_Face]

11 hours ago, ShampooActual said:

No,  Ask Mr.WaterBottle he was the Sherman. 

Mr.WaterBottle was indeed in sherman that day, but did he confirm that he shot you, from the front, at 500m distance?

 

11 hours ago, ShampooActual said:

Also Jackman and Balego they were there.

They witnessed the scene directly and clearly saw what happened?

 

Maybe we're not talking about the same game after all. I'm talking about the one on October 15.

You are the 911 tiger, right?

 

11 hours ago, ShampooActual said:

How am I wrong?

I think that the distance and the origin of the shot are wrong information.
By the way, even at 500m, a sherman can kill you from the front, but you need a bit of luck because the shell has to pass through the driver window. On the other hand in these cases I do not believe that the tank explodes, to check.

 

11 hours ago, ShampooActual said:

Do you have Video?

And you ? After all, you're the one saying there's a ballistics problem.

 

 

11 hours ago, ShampooActual said:

You have 6 hours of playing time on FVP with zero kills - zero anything.  This should be good.................

I think about it, but I don't see the connection. I would like some explanations because I'm not sure.

 

By the way, in your current virtual life, you have a little over 6 hours and only one destroyed ground target (AI?) (nothing impressive) as well as 6 planes.
6 planes destroyed with a tiger, not bad. But considering the data, you destroyed them while they were on the runway.
So, I have nothing against that, it's part of the game, personally I don't do it because I don't like it, but if your remark "You have 6 hours of playing time on FVP with zero kills" was to take me down and impress me, well it's missed...

 

?‍♂️

 

[ShampooX]

Ok buddy.  See you out there.

[No_Face]

1 hour ago, ShampooActual said:

Ok buddy.  See you out there.

Okay okay, I'll stop bothering you.

First of all, I want to say that I have nothing against you. I respect you like most people on this forum.

 

Only, here you were the perfect example of what I wanted to show:

-Things are not always as they seem.
-It may seem like the game is buggy, but it's not.
-Testimonials can be wrong.

-The number is not necessarily more right than the individuality.
-Without proof, the developers can't do anything. They can do tests on their own, but if their results don't indicate anything wrong, then they have no reason to dig further.

 

You even allowed me to highlight the tunnel effect and the arguments of authorities.

 

If I know what happened during this confrontation with this "sherman", it is because I was there at the time.

And I recorded the game.

 

This is what you saw, this is the reality you believed in. :
 

 

 

as you can see, it was not a sherman that you faced but a Churchill, that's why after your death you wrote on the chat, be surprised that a Churchill can pierce a Tiger.

 

Mr. Waterbottle, your killer told you "It was not a Churchill who killed you".

And for good reason, it was indeed a Sherman that killed you, but not from 500m in front.

 

Here is what really happened. :

 

 

Finally, in your case, there seems to have been no problem, in fact the opposite is true, ballistics did what was expected of it.

However, for you, it was sure, there was a problem.

 

That's why, I repeat, announcing bugs without having all the information and without being able to provide proof is not admissible by the developers.

 

Again, I'll say it again, the game probably isn't perfect and this message shouldn't discourage people from reporting strange phenomena, but it should just be done by the book for the good of the game.

 

And ShampooActual, I repeat myself but I want to make it clear, I have nothing against you. The idea here was not to make you look like a liar or anything. The goal was simply to demonstrate, with a nice example, the mistakes that can be made.

 

I could have told you "You are wrong, you were not killed by a Sherman at a distance of 500m from the front, I have a video that shows it" but I needed, that you are sincere reactions to prove that even without the intention to lie, without the will to distort reality, that in good faith, one could have a false idea of the events, even when one has lived them in the first line and therefore transmit incorrect information.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by No_Face

[moustache]

hello, @Pas de visagehow do you get these videos? on the server site? so many times (often?), I understand my mistakes that led me to die, so many times, I get nothing... it would help me a lot, I think, to progress...

[No_Face]

Hi @moustache, these videos are from the flight recorders (Left Ctrl + R by default).
Be careful, these recorders do not record the past (unlike the Instant Replay function of the Shadow Play of the Nvidia graphics cards for example which can save the last X minutes), so you have to activate them in case you think that something will happen.
For example, you see enemies in the distance, you want to record the fight, you activate the flight recorder then you engage the fight.

You will have a camera icon on a red background in the upper right corner to indicate that it is recording.
Attention, the recorders are limited in size (500mo of head (about 25 minutes of recording (to be checked))).
If you want to film a 5h game, you must regularly think of cutting them (as a precaution, because you do not have a message telling you the end of the recording) and then restart it immediately to not have too important cut.
Then, to view them, you go to the main menu then "flight recorder" and you select the one you want (this is what I do in the 1st video). You can then move the camera freely or follow a particular vehicle.

Edited October 19, 2022 by No_Face

[ShampooX]

Good job No Face.  You are right.  It was a Sherman that got me from the side.  I feel better now about the situation.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

The tracks recorded through the ingame flight recorder feature is also the material that the developers want for bug reports.

 

As an aside, Tacview is also a pretty good tool for analyzing fights after the fact.

[CountZero]

On 10/19/2022 at 5:17 AM, ShampooActual said:

No,  Ask Mr.WaterBottle he was the Sherman.  Also Jackman and Balego they were there.

How am I wrong?  Do you have Video?  You have 6 hours of playing time on FVP with zero kills - zero anything.  This should be good.................

ah yes hours of playing on server mather when clear baias is in question lol

 

player who only plays with uber tanks, thinks all other tanks are op and because he plays 1000s of hours only with his uber tank he is right

 

why do devs not fix clear problems axis only tankers report lol

[ShampooX]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

ah yes hours of playing on server mather when clear baias is in question lol

 

player who only plays with uber tanks, thinks all other tanks are op and because he plays 1000s of hours only with his uber tank he is right

 

why do devs not fix clear problems axis only tankers report lol

See Count, if you actually played the game once in a while, your posts would have a lot more meaning.

 

If you played the game you'd understand that attacking an Enemy Temp in a tank is the hardest thing in the game you can do.  Especially if you play the German side.  Infils are difficult because the closer you get the easier and more likely you are to be spotted.  And once the enemy is actively looking for you, E&E is even harder.  Do I bail out after I've been disabled?  Of course I do.  Thats how it works in the real world too, dude.

 

If you played the game you'd know that the "uber tanks" are only available in limited quantities.  The longer the match goes, the less there are.  If you played the game you'd know the SU 152 can one shot anything in the game.  And you'd know that the Russian ground attack air superiority is so much more effective, that the presence of "uber tanks"  is almost a non-factor.  You'd know that it takes more skill to avoid an an IL-2, or better a Mossie who are actively hunting you in a Tiger than it takes to kill a Tiger with a T34.  But since you don't play the game, you don't know these things.  It's ok.

 

If you actually played the game today, you'd see it's Tankset One and I'm currently playing in a "lowly" PPZ IV.  So much for my uber tanks today.

 

So come on Count, your such a cool dude - come play FVP or AAS.  I mean at least once.......show up...get some stats, even if it's just a few hours playing time.  Give it a try.

[LachenKrieg]

On 10/17/2022 at 2:48 PM, LukeFF said:

 

You're just going to take his word for it without doing tests of your own or without a track being provided?

 

 

That's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one.

I didn't say anything about the validity of his report, I simply thanked him for contributing to the thread.

 

But regarding your straw man argument comment, there was no misrepresentation intended on my part.

 

Look, I get that the GBS is primarily a flight sim, and I tried to support the devs with that endeavor. Just look at my signature. I am here because of TC, but I also purchased several of the flight sim products, none of which I have ever used. I will probably get more out of the flight sim part of GBS if/when I add flight controls to my system, but without TC I wouldn't be here period.

 

The hope is that I can get back to using TC as a WWII AFV simulator, but I realize ground vehicles are not likely to become the priority any time soon. 

[LachenKrieg]

On 10/18/2022 at 11:25 AM, ShampooActual said:

The entire crew escaped and some of them were even interviewed for the documentary that came out about it a few years ago.  There was no shot to the turret as post action pics show only a single hole in the side-hull and all the spare linkage mounted on the turret still in tact.

 

But thats not my point - a couple days ago on FVP, my Tiger got one-shotted by a Sherman at about 500m - from the front.  It was APHE because I saw the round come in.  This has never happened before.  I thank you guys for doing the testing because it seems like something might have changed.

 

That Panther had just knocked out a Sherman, taking 3 of its crew.

 

My understanding was everyone but the Gunner got off the tank. I think the penetration mark you see in the image is the hit that caused the crew to start bailing out. The second hit doesn't appear to penetrate as the blast is clearly external. It looks more like it hits the upper front side and then gets deflected up into the bottom of the turret. If you look a few feet to the right of the penetration mark in the image you linked, you can see damage marks close to the area where the second shot strikes. A third shot is fired into the lower front side after the tank caught fire, and after the crew bailed.

 

The interesting bits here IMO are the timing of things. It's not easy to be accurate down to the second, but if we consider the Pershing had about a 10 second reload time, this is close to the amount of time it takes for the second shot to strike in the video clip I saw. Flames were visible outside the tank just before the second shot.

 

It is also interesting to note that the Commander had boots on the ground before the second shot hit! So much for the "oh my god, my tanks and fire and I can't get out of the tank" test. But because the Commander was well clear of the tank when the second strike hit, my guess is that we could add about 5 to 10 seconds, which would put the full cook-off approximately 25 seconds after the initial hit, or about 5 seconds before the 3rd hit.