new realisim mod for SP15

[Stig]

Seems armor_frail =  spalling potential, the tendency for hits on the outside to cause shrapnel to be cast amongst the crew on the inside.

[frinik]

  Stig you have 88 armour strength for the JS2 ( the JS1 is the 1943 model the 1944 model in beta 1.5 is the JS2)? Did you tweak it down? Because mine is 100?

AS for the T34/85 ZIS-53 gun it could kill the Tiger II at less than 500 metres if it hits the lower front armour which is only 60 mm thick.However sometimes it´s not so much the AP shells that can be the most dangerous but the HE( 25 kilos for the JS2) that can spall your tank , killing the crew through the concusive effects of a blast on the turret or they can disable the gun and loading mechanism making your Tiger II or Panther a sitting duck.

It seems to me the armour_frail includes the propensity of the armour to be penetrated.

[scottyd2506]

  Stig you have 88 armour strength for the JS2 ( the JS1 is the 1943 model the 1944 model in beta 1.5 is the JS2)? Did you tweak it down? Because mine is 100?

AS for the T34/85 ZIS-53 gun it could kill the Tiger II at less than 500 metres if it hits the lower front armour which is only 60 mm thick.However sometimes it´s not so much the AP shells that can be the most dangerous but the HE( 25 kilos for the JS2) that can spall your tank , killing the crew through the concusive effects of a blast on the turret or they can disable the gun and loading mechanism making your Tiger II or Panther a sitting duck.

It seems to me the armour_frail includes the propensity of the armour to be penetrated.

    I'm not Stig, but yeah the 88 for the Is-2 armor thick seems kinda low to me.. the armor in the TGA file wasn't all that impressive for this tank, the IS-2 was much better than a T-34 for protection,,

  Armor frail??

  is 0.8 better than 0.5??? or the other way??

Armor Frail of some tanks in SF

IS-2  = 0.8

KV-1 = 0.4

T34-84 = 0.7

Panther = 0.3

Tiger2 = 0.5

Tiger = 0.2

 does this mean the Tiger 1 and Panther is the worst of the bunch?

 another note is, if the tiger II lower front plate is only 60mm, why does the sim have it at 120mm? is this wrong in the sim? They have the Panthers front plates at 85/65 seems about right on that one.
   I thought the Tiger was actually like 150/100 upper lower a 50 deg avg slopped.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm

This site also tell of no battlefield proof or account any anything ever penetrating the Tiger II front plate in COMBAT.
 Although it does say the 17 ponder could have penetrated the lower if in the right spot.

like 230mm upper plate if you add from a Horizontal measurement..  I know the sim calculates armor slope, but to what effect, I mean, is it for deflection of energy, added horizontal thickness or both?
 the T35-85 wouldn't even scratch the front of a King Tiger at 10 meters.  a Firefly or Su-100 at the lower (small area) plate maybe yes.

    HE round penetrating armor??  I thought HE rounds were primary for thin skinned targets.. I know on rare occasions one might explode right under the the lower hull, or right between the upper tank armor and turret to disable tank... explosive devices need pressure to damage.. say you set off and M-80 in your open hand.. going to hurt, let it explode in your closed fist, and you lose fingers.
  I don't agree on this one, not on the norm.. you may be talking ultra ultra rare cases.

    Grenades are made with steel casing so shrapnel will fly and kill, that is why the Army didn't throw dynamite.. if explosive HE devices would have did it, then the US would have them in all the Sherman tanks to battle the Panthers and such on even terms. once in a million doesn't cut the cake.

   Anyways back to the point, would like to know what you changed in your CFG files to make it more real.. think we are on the same page there.

[frinik]

  There are 2 values the top one means the overall quality of the armour and the second one means the propensioty of the armour to faiul.Thus the Tiger I gets 1.0 top mark for armour quality and 0.2 for the propensity of its armour to be penetrated , spalled or damaged.
The JS2 gets 0.8 and 0.7 I believe which indicates its armour is neither very good quality and highly prone to cracking , breaking etc.That´s my conclusion at least.

Norm did I say that HE penetrated ? I mentioned the concussive effect of 25 kilo, 122mm shell hitting the turret of a Tiger or Panther.It may not penetrate but the sheer power of the explosive blast would reverberate inside the tank( which is metallic) and inflict traumatic  or concussive injuries to the crew being tossed around or through spalling .Spalling was extensively researched as it was responsible for a considerable number of fatal or serious injuries to tank crews.

As for penetration, HE can penetrate armour, to a much lesser extent than AP shells for sure, but could punch through armour nonetheless. Folr example the sprenggranate of the TIger II could penetrate 90 mm of armour up to 1000 metres and those of the JS2 120 mm up to 1500 metres thus endangering both Tiger I and Panther.Although before people jump to conclusions the JS carried only 28 rounds and its rate of fire wasa platry 1.25 to 1.5 shells a minute for the late 1944 up from 1. to 1.25 on the 1943 JS122 model.Not exactly a tank against tank fighting machine....

[Stig]

Frinik wrote:

It seems to me the armour_frail includes the propensity of the armour to be penetrated.

I can't agree with this. That would indicate some overall "toughness" value. Isn't that what calculations of armor thickness vs. ballistic energy and angle of projectile strike are for? And if we have an armor_frail catchall value, why bother with various side, top and front values, and greyscale .tga files?

I can see where armor_frail might indicate a raw material quality... or a spalling tendency... or some specific quality of the armor itself. But it can't be as general as what you're hypothesizing above.

At any rate, we need to know what this value represents. It does seem that the lower the value, the tougher the target (or the "less frail" the armor).

[lockie]

It does seem that the lower the value, the tougher the target (or the "less frail" the armor).

That's wright. If armor_frail=0, there won't be any spalling (tiny bits of armor which effects the crew after shell strike the tank) and the crew will get 99% chance to survive.

[scottyd2506]

It does seem that the lower the value, the tougher the target (or the "less frail" the armor).

That's wright. If armor_frail=0, there won't be any spalling (tiny bits of armor which effects the crew after shell strike the tank) and the crew will get 99% chance to survive.

 99%, I think what you mean, is from fragment damage! But not from the projectile bouncing around the inside of the tank (if it didn't go all the way trough out the other side 1st).

[scottyd2506]

The Object Editor is for viewing the .go files (the 3-D models).

For the example of the Panther Tank above, convert the armour map tga to dds and rename the file as 'techn_panther_c.dds', then save it to the following folder:

<game folder>\data\k42\loc_rus\textures\techn\tanks\heavy

(Make a backup copy of the original skin, before over-writing or replacing it).

Open the 'Panther.go' file to check out the results 

 doesn't work... the go files are the same as usual.... I replaced the converted TGA to dds file in the  folder \heavy  (back up saved original), opened object editor, open and same tank, and it looks just as before. I've tried this before same results.
maybe you have some special program we do not have. the editor ONLY views go files... that's it, no DDS.
  Thanks for trying though

[scottyd2506]

This little mod isn't a big deal for some of you, but those who like to drive the King Tiger, Panther, KV-1 2, IS-2 etc..

http://www.4shared.com/file/-OHOKBeY/armor_fixes_12.html

 Please view org message for new modified file and readme

[Kyth]

 doesn't work... the go files are the same as usual.... I replaced the converted TGA to dds file in the  folder \heavy  (back up saved original), opened object editor, open and same tank, and it looks just as before. I've tried this before same results.
maybe you have some special program we do not have. the editor ONLY views go files... that's it, no DDS.
  Thanks for trying though

Hi Scotty,

Which image-editing program do you use for the conversion of tga to dds? I use Gimp, with the dds plugin.
If you only want to view the dds files, you could use the same image-editing program.

The Object editor is for viewing and editing .go files. It also handles import of .x files for conversion to the .go format,
 

[Mistwalker]

KV-1
armor_thick   =   90; to 100;
armor_qual   =   0.85; to 0.9;
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100

KV-2
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100

IS-2
armor_thick   =   88; to 100;
armor_qual   =   0.8; to 1.0;
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100;
 
Mk2
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100;

German

Pabther
armor_frail   =   0.3; to 0.5;
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100;

Tiger + TigerR
armor_str   =   2000; to 2100;

King Tiger (Tiger II) changes
armor_qual   =   0.7; to 1.0;
armor_frail   =   0.5; to 0.6
armor_str   =   1950; to 2100;



Summery
--------------------------------------------------
KV-1 1942 had crazy thick armor for the time, in early 1942 no tank on Earth was even close
 to it for armor protection, KV-1's in 1941 and 42 was practically invincible to German
tanks of the time. (although aircraft and some AT guns could take it out)

slightly ajusted values for the KV-1

-------------------------------------------------
(King)Tiger II
  No frontal armor has even been recorded to have been penetrated during WW2. At least not the upper
 front  slope 160mm plate, although there is a pic on a penetrating shot on the front turret of a King Tiger, the turret
 was a small area of 180mm, but not slopped. It was said a 17 pounder from close range did it.

 Another instance was a penetrating shot from 300-400 meters from a M26 Super Pershing on the lower belly plate.
 There was only 2 Super Pershings made, but only one did see combat.. a huge improved T15E1 90mm gun
 penetration was likle 8,5 inches (213mm) at 1000 meters, and 13 inches (320mm) at 100 meters
    Overall with the great optics, at long range over 1000 meters the King Tiger was almost invicible from
  damage to the front of it.
   
This does not mean the tank was totally invincible, there is an instance where on lone T-34, knocked
 off 3 Tiger II at close range with side hits. and also AT guns, aircraft.

Slightly modified values for ktiger

------------------------------------------------
IS-2

 The IS-2 another great WW2 weapon, the 122mm was slow to reloead, and not as good for penetration
 as the 100mm (SU-100), but the IS-2 had like 150mm frontal plate armor, thick turret armor all around
 and probably the best tank the Russian had to see combat in WWII.

Ok. There are some right values and some wrong.

First: I STRONGLY do not recommend to change armor_str parameters for any tech which has armor thickness over 50 mm. Because we still do not know how armor_str is calculated and according to the game tests 100 points of armor_str may be equivalent to additional 30 mm of armor for 80mm armor plate. So I suggest to leave armor_str as-is. Except for King Tiger which is known for it's bad quality armor.

Second: armor_thick = 100 for kv-1 is clearly WRONG value because Kv-1 had 75mm armor and with value of 100 it will have about 80mm armor.

Third: armor_frail for early German tanks should be low, because the inner surface of the armor plate was soft (until quality of the armor dropped, and that was in mid-44). On the other side according to the documents and fire tests early IS-2 had high armor frail  (KV had middle).

Fourth: As to the King Tiger armor. The polygon tests have shown that 122-mm and 100 mm shells could penetrate turret front armor at about 1000 m and even in some rare cases - 150 mm (not 160) hull armor. There are photos of that. Also there's unconfirmed evidence that in real battle SU-100 were able to kill King Tiger with frontal shot (Balaton operation).

Fifth: As to to the IS-2. armor_thick = 88 was a mistake. It should be set to 100. However it should be noted that IS-2 had casted
front and turret armor, and casted armor gives about 10% less protection than rolled armor. Those IS-2 issues corrected in a fix, but it's release's delaying.

From one mod to the other I noted that the front thickness for the T34/85 for example varied from 75 to 90( without explanation given nor substantiated by any historical data I could find).Likewise there were fluctuations for some values for the Tiger I.Without throwing accusations of bias ( but v certainly a subconcious slant)

It's always about corrections. When you start working on your mod, at  first you take your data from the common internet sources. Then you read some more serious documents and realize that many of those sources you were using aren't nessesarily correct. And there are too many corrections to bother describing every last one.  Plus there were mistakes from the beginning in the vanilla game (for example t-34 had armor 8 mm thinner than it should be). And I think there are still mistakes in some files (for example armor of captured t-34).

I also saw thta basically the T34/85  was given 90mm of front thickness and the TIger II 100mm.

And that is correct. For t-34-85 90mm is max armor value, but 100 mm IS NOT max armor value for King Tiger.

As well the armour frail values for the Tiger II is 0.7 ???Based on what?I'll bet you on the result of the Kubinka shooting trials conducted by the Soviets on a captured Tiger II which showed the amrour to be prone to spalling with poor quality welding and cracks.

Not only that.  The Soviet research has shown that armor quality had dropped for many german tanks. In some cases the armor's been good and in some cases even 122mm HE shells could literally blow panther side armor plates to pieces. And according to that it was assumed that Tiger 2 more often should have lower-quality armor than it should not.

The correct minimum value for that tank is 60 pzgr39 and 30 HE.

Source? It's too many AP shells for tiger I.

The pzgr40( tungsten cored ) were discontinued after Dec 1943.

And the SPM modification has early (spring 1943) Tiger.

AS for the T34/85 ZIS-53 gun it could kill the Tiger II at less than 500 metres if it hits the lower front armour which is only 60 mm thick.

Actually it was 120 mm. 60mm lower front plate was on Panther.

If I'm playing the sim and in a T-34-85 face to face with a King Tiger (in the SP-1.5 mod) and I take him out front shot ... it is not real..

You could damage tracks or gun. Then in some cases crew will bail out. Plus there's ugly issue with fragments of shells that sometimes hit polygon edges. And in this case nothing will help. 

No one wants to be in a  Is-2 and be killed from a Pz4 from front at 1000 meters..

And this was a reality.

If so, what if some of the values in the front, top, side, bottom are correct, but maybe just ONE is "off"?

Front, top, side and bottom armor thickness is used only for AI. And because of that it should be about 30% lower than real armor thickness, which is calculated by armor map.

Seems armor_frail =  spalling potential, the tendency for hits on the outside to cause shrapnel to be cast amongst the crew on the inside.

That's correct.

[lockie]

Ok. There are some right values and some wrong.

Suppose, someone from developers came here

[scottyd2506]

Ok. There are some right values and some wrong.

Most of us have noticed this

First: I STRONGLY do not recommend to change armor_str parameters for any tech which has armor thickness over 50 mm. Because we still do not know how armor_str is calculated and according to the game tests 100 points of armor_str may be equivalent to additional 30 mm of armor for 80mm armor plate. So I suggest to leave armor_str as-is. Except for King Tiger which is known for it's bad quality armor.

Not too sure about this, We know the late model Panther "G" had less nickel and other hardens alloys at the later part of the war..  Germany had shortages of nickel, magnesium, tungsten etc etc at late war time, but it did not mean they didn't have any for premium tanks like the King Tiger, the Panther was a high production tank, not a spcialty tank like the King Tiger, let us not ASSUME just because PantherG got low Nickel on Armor that King Tigers did too..

Second: armor_thick = 100 for kv-1 is clearly WRONG value because Kv-1 had 75mm armor and with value of 100 it will have about 80mm armor.

 

All this armor = historic is all nice, but the sim doesn't seem to use it Wisely, no 85mm T34 should take out a Tiger II at 1500 meter. so maybe the numbers are not what they seem

Third: armor_frail for early German tanks should be low, because the inner surface of the armor plate was soft (until quality of the armor dropped, and that was in mid-44). On the other side according to the documents and fire tests early IS-2 had high armor frail  (KV had middle).

     


Fourth: As to the King Tiger armor. The polygon tests have shown that 122-mm and 100 mm shells could penetrate turret front armor at about 1000 m and even in some rare cases - 150 mm (not 160) hull armor.

There is not a picture on the planet earth that shows a hole through a King Tigers upper Front Hull, not in from real battle anyways...

   There is a pic on the net showing a hole through, the front "turret" of a King Tiger from a
 British 17 pounder from close range.

  Tests: those are all good on paper... a Test of shooting 150mm of armor at 1000 meters, does not always work in real world, esp if the Tiger II's frontal plate had high strength alloys in it.. While the Russian were testing on poor quality plates..

There are photos of that. Also there's unconfirmed evidence that in real battle SU-100 were able to kill King Tiger with frontal shot (Balaton operation).

Well, the Su100 with the Russian 100mm was an awesome machine, I would not doubt that in battle a Russian 100mm at close to moderate range could do this.. the 100mm was like much better than the 122mm for penetration roles... if an 17 pounder can go through the frontal turret of a king Tiger, why not the Russian 100mm at same range.. no doubt there.

Fifth: As to to the IS-2. armor_thick = 88 was a mistake. It should be set to 100. However it should be noted that IS-2 had casted
front and turret armor, and casted armor gives about 10% less protection than rolled armor. Those IS-2 issues corrected in a fix, but it's release's delaying.

 

This was the biggest fault I seen in the mod, the IS-2 was an awesome tank, and was not so frail, and the main part I wanted to mod.

And that is correct. For t-34-85 90mm is max armor value, but 100 mm IS NOT max armor value for King Tiger.

how would you correct this?

Not only that.  The Soviet research has shown that armor quality had dropped for many german tanks. In some cases the armor's been good and in some cases even 122mm HE shells could literally blow panther side armor plates to pieces. And according to that it was assumed that Tiger 2 more often should have lower-quality armor than it should not.

Again, You ASSUMPTION is that a low production PREMIUM tank like the Tiger II would get the same lower quality armor of the higher production late war Panther. (heck I wouldn't call it low quality by US standards)
 Maybe none of us really know, so you might make a mod making it lower, to suit your ASSUMPTION, and we Assumed different about the Panther armor from the King Tiger. It is all good, not everyone agrees on everything 100%, it seems we get tangled up in the 1% we don't.. LOL

Actually it was 120 mm. 60mm lower front plate was on Panther.


You could damage tracks or gun. Then in some cases crew will bail out. Plus there's ugly issue with fragments of shells that sometimes hit polygon edges. And in this case nothing will help. 

 

yeah there is help, take shell fragments out..  you might say "but they did fragment", but in real like there was no polygon edges either... what one seems to work more real.??

No one wants to be in a  Is-2 and be killed from a Pz4 from front at 1000 meters..

And this was a reality.

Well, we feel the same way with the Tiger and Tiger II, don't want to get killed by a frontal shot at 1500 metrs from a T34-85 -- That too was a reality

If so, what if some of the values in the front, top, side, bottom are correct, but maybe just ONE is "off"?

Front, top, side and bottom armor thickness is used only for AI. And because of that it should be about 30% lower than real armor thickness, which is calculated by armor map.

 

Yeah, that way at least the enemy will try and shoot at you... Seems you know pretty much about this sim (I'm a noob big-time) and some about history, although we may differ on issues of quality of armors used on certain AFV's at times, we are mainly on the same page.. I will indeed use some of your info and change the mod.. We both agree on the Is-2 as the biggest issue in need of fixing.. some of the other things I will scale down in the mod.. closer to stock SP15.. I really do thank you for your kind help.
looking forward to hear more from you.

Also I think a lot of the issue is the shell fragmentation on the edges of the polygons, wondering if toning down shell fragment would cure some of this?

[Mistwalker]

let us not ASSUME just because PantherG got low Nickel on Armor that King Tigers did too..

They did. Because 80mm armor for Panthers and Tigers was made from the same mark of steel, afair E22. Front armor of Tiger 2 had nickel in it, but for example analysis of Kubinka Tiger 2 has shown, that it's armor doesn't have molybdenum at all.

All this armor = historic is all nice, but the sim doesn't seem to use it Wisely

Are you sure? Does KV-1 get destroyed too often?

no 85mm T34 should take out a Tiger II at 1500 meter.

As I said, if something like that happened it's probably an exception. And I'm totally sure that armor in that case hasn't been penetrated.

There is not a picture on the planet earth that shows a hole through a King Tigers upper Front Hull

There is. Not real batlle, as you said, but there is.
http://img191.imageshack.us/i/phocathumbl037.jpg/
I have a scan of the real document from the archives too. It says how many shells of each caliber hit the armor, distance and damage dealt. The only thing - it's in russian. 

the 100mm was like much better than the 122mm for penetration roles

Actually 122mm for penetration roles in WW2 has served better than 100 mm.

This was the biggest fault I seen in the mod, the IS-2 was an awesome tank, and was not so frail

It was at first. Even hits of 76mm ZIS-3 at 600m distance (without penetration) spawned large amounts of shrapnel on the inside.
There's an example when lower front armor of first-series IS was penetrated  by 20-mm heavy antitank rifle in real battle.
Anyway, there's now updated model of historically correct early IS-122.

how would you correct this?

You don't need to correct it. For those tanks armor parameters are right. Well, mostly, I suppose.

Again, You ASSUMPTION is that a low production PREMIUM tank like the Tiger II would get the same lower quality armor of the higher production late war Panther.

See above.

yeah there is help, take shell fragments out..

Then the shell will deal much, much less damage after penetration. It'll work as APCR works now. If you won't hit any vital points with it, the vehicle will continue combat even with penetrated armor.

Also I think a lot of the issue is the shell fragmentation on the edges of the polygons, wondering if toning down shell fragment would cure some of this?

Maybe there's a way, but I don't know about it yet. It does not happen very often, but sometimes it happens.
Plus there's ANOTHER issue. If at a low-degree angle shell hits a polygon of the model part, that protects the crew or damagezones, but isn't parent of those damagezones, then in some cases shell kills everything in tank.  And THAT can be fixed (actually I did that already for the vehicles that had this issue often and can upload it if needed).  Maybe it  depends on d_ db_ prefixes in some way too. I have yet to confirm that.

[scottyd2506]

They did. Because 80mm armor for Panthers and Tigers was made from the same mark of steel, afair E22. Front armor of Tiger 2 had nickel in it, but for example analysis of Kubinka Tiger 2 has shown, that it's armor doesn't have molybdenum at all.

All this armor = historic is all nice, but the sim doesn't seem to use it Wisely

 

It kind of seems your source of Russian tests is not a total.. there are extreme examples.. from what I read the Germans had enough high quality steel up till the last of 1944, Early 1945.
  There is always extreme examples, we can generalize from.

Are you sure? Does KV-1 get destroyed too often?

 

I played some scenarios where I setup some Pz3 and 4's and they eventually broke my tank through it frontal armor..

no 85mm T34 should take out a Tiger II at 1500 meter.

As I said, if something like that happened it's probably an exception. And I'm totally sure that armor in that case hasn't been penetrated.

There is not a picture on the planet earth that shows a hole through a King Tigers upper Front Hull, not in from real battle anyways

There is. Not real batlle, as you said, but there is.
http://img191.imageshack.us/i/phocathumbl037.jpg/

 

  yeah, in practice after the war, or maybe have tank setup at downward angle to rid the slope... then have a 85mm 122mm and 100mm blow through it at 50 meters..
            Russian propaganda!!!!  Think about it, if this was that easy, you'd seen em all over the battleground with holes in the front everywhere or sometimes.. instead of NEVER!!!!!!

  . You have to put testing and and actual battlefield results in a different section altogether.. results of one can be propaganda for moral boost, the later one, can not ignored.

I have a scan of the real document from the archives too. It says how many shells of each caliber hit the armor, distance and damage dealt. The only thing - it's in russian. 

  I'll look at then.

the 100mm was like much better than the 122mm for penetration roles

Actually 122mm for penetration roles in WW2 has served better than 100 mm.

blaaa, I can not find my test results I found from year past, but I remember with the same round the 100mm was better than the 122 up to like 1000 meters... now I'm sure at 1500-2000 meters shooting at a slope plate, the slower 122mm would do better as by the arc of flight, when it hits the plate, the projectile would be like 0 deg angle (no deflecting).. but Russian had such poor optics, that 1500 meters was 100% luck back then.. I still stand the 100mm was the Russians best in WW@.

This was the biggest fault I seen in the mod, the IS-2 was an awesome tank, and was not so frail

It was at first. Even hits of 76mm ZIS-3 at 600m distance (without penetration) spawned large amounts of shrapnel on the inside.
There's an example when lower front armor of first-series IS was penetrated  by 20-mm heavy antitank rifle in real battle.
Anyway, there's now updated model of historically correct early IS-122.

Do you do modifications for this mod or know someone who does??  interesting! some very gifted people working on those Steel Panzer mods for Steel Fury.

how would you correct this?

You don't need to correct it. For those tanks armor parameters are right. Well, mostly, I suppose.

Again, You ASSUMPTION is that a low production PREMIUM tank like the Tiger II would get the same lower quality armor of the higher production late war Panther.

See above.

OK just think about it.. I'm not going by some Russian test, I'm going by REAL life batrtlefield results, out of 430+ tanks, no Tiger II frontal upper plate has even been penetrated in the battlefield!
   I did not say lower plate or turret front. although the upper plate makes up the biggest part.

    You can argue over how much nickel or lack of other quality steel it didn't have, but it takes more than 150mm of poor steel to stop those 85mm-100mm-122mm and 152mm the Russians was shooting at them in the War.  Most tanks are shot at the front, most hits are on the frontal plate, about EVERY tank type to see combat in the war has had holes punched through it's frontal armor.. EXCEPT the Tiger II.


 What ever they lacked on some persons report, is mute-  compared to the end result.
         In REAL life, they have superb armor quality, the Russians may have taken some of the captured ones from the factories at wars end when they finally did run out of good steel.. and tested them..

  I'm not saying that it is invincible, I'm sure some luck was involved, as even the hardest quality plate armor of 150mm would fail from a close shot from a Su-100 or 122mm, esp if th tank was going down a hill, thus = no horizontal slope.

yeah there is help, take shell fragments out..

Then the shell will deal much, much less damage after penetration. It'll work as APCR works now. If you won't hit any vital points with it, the vehicle will continue combat even with penetrated armor.

good point, you know quite a bit about this game/sim

Also I think a lot of the issue is the shell fragmentation on the edges of the polygons, wondering if toning down shell fragment would cure some of this?

Maybe there's a way, but I don't know about it yet. It does not happen very often, but sometimes it happens.
Plus there's ANOTHER issue. If at a low-degree angle shell hits a polygon of the model part, that protects the crew or damagezones, but isn't parent of those damagezones, then in some cases shell kills everything in tank.  And THAT can be fixed (actually I did that already for the vehicles that had this issue often and can upload it if needed).  Maybe it  depends on d_ db_ prefixes in some way too. I have yet to confirm that.

the issue of gun damage is big time.. I mean like the gun optics damage, a firecracker lands beside the tanks, and nothing works..  do you know how to fix gun damage?  I most certainly do not have the knowledge or brains to decipher it.  It has been good to debate with you... like I said I am going use some of your feedback on the armor files.. I do thank you for your help

[frinik]

Hi Mistwalker!

1)  Except for King Tiger which is known for it's bad quality armor.Mistwalker your source for this statement? According to a fine specialist, Thomas Jentz, the issue of poor armour quality for the TIger II is not substantiated.His own research in German archives did not turn up any evidence of poor manufacturing or defective quality control in the manufacturing fo the TIger II nor of its armour.This does not mean that some models may not have had quality issues perhaps due to disruptions in production but to generalise and assert  " that it is known" ??By whom?It sounds to me like unsubstantiated. I know you are probably going to refer to the Soviet tests conducted on a captured Tiger II at Kubinka. Putting aside any doubts on the objectivity of Soviet tests( after all the same might be said of all sides testing the other's armopur) it would be interesting to fidn out in what condition was that Tiger II found or captured?The results that show spalling and brittle armour might be the results of battle damage suffered by the tank rather than the original quality of the steel used for its manufacturing.Let's be careful not to generalise based on one example .As for Soviet research I have my doubts considering how closely it was controlled by the Party and Stalinist orthodoxy .I wouldn't put the Soviets above manipulating results to boost the morale of the Soviet tank corps( considering thta the average life expectancy of a Soviet tank crew was 2 1/2 to 3 weeks in 1944).I personally prefer to rely on Jentz.American and British tests conducted on captured German armour after the war concluded that late German armour was not high quality but was on par with their own production.Thus likely to be above Soviet manufacturing quality .The shortage of alloys needed for the making of special steel certainly impacted the quality of German armour but let's remember that only 492 Tiger II were manufactured and  only half of those after the shortages became a problem.Personally I decided to lower armour frail to 0.4 which is higher than for the Panzer IV and TIger I (0.2)and takes into account the fact that German steel, while still good, was nowhere near as good after summer 1944 but defintely better than Soviet steel used for their heavy armour.



2) Quote
AS for the T34/85 ZIS-53 gun it could kill the Tiger II at less than 500 metres if it hits the lower front armour which is only 60 mm thick.

Actually it was 120 mm. 60mm lower front plate was on Panther.

Mistwalker we are not talking about the same Tiger II tank then.I have here the figures for both Porsche and Henschel type turrets for the Tiger II taken from the Tiger Information centre and corroborated by other sources as well(actually I made a mistake too since it's 40 mm not 60)....

Armor layout: (all angles from horizontal)[8] Hull front (lower) 100 mm (3.9 in) at 40° (upper) 150 mm (5.9 in) at 40°
Hull side (lower) 80 mm (3.1 in) at 90° (upper) 80 mm (3.1 in) at 65°
Hull rear  80 mm (3.1 in) at 60°   
Hull top  40 mm (1.6 in) at 90°   
Hull bottom (front) 40 mm (1.6 in) at 90° (rear) 25 mm (0.98 in) at 90°
Turret front (production) 180 mm (7.1 in) at 80° ("Porsche") 60 to 110 mm (2.4 to 4.3 in), rounded
Turret side (production) 80 mm (3.1 in) at 69° ("Porsche") 80 mm (3.1 in) at 60°
Turret rear (production) 80 mm (3.1 in) at 70° ("Porsche") 80 mm (3.1 in) at 60°
Turret top (production) 44 mm (1.7 in) at 0–10° ("Porsche")


 40 mm (1.6 in) at 0–12°

I   
 



3)Quote
The correct minimum value for that tank is 60 pzgr39 and 30 HE.

Source? It's too many AP shells for tiger I.

Quote
The pzgr40( tungsten cored ) were discontinued after Dec 1943.

ACtually you'll find that information in about a dozen different sources, Thomas Jentz's books, the Tiger Information Centre, Panzerworld, The Axis History Forum, Achtung panzer, The Bundeswehr military information centre, the Muenster Panzer museum website, wikipedia even. All sources agree that the standard complement for the Tiger I was 60 and 32 (AP-HE) and in some cases later in the war, Tiger  crews would stack up - against regulaitons - 106 to 120 shells .

RE the Tungsten core shells It's my personal decision to do away with them as I find them totally ineffective in the game. Of course they were still used by Tiger I, II and Panther crews( not to forget Pak) but very sparingly as late as December 1944 against heavy Soviet armour.


4) re the TIger II never been frontally penetrated.I am also sceptical about that statement which has become a sort of religious dogma.There's no confirmed evidence but this doe snot mean it did not happen.The Tiger II, while a magnificent beast, was not invincible. I remeber reading a story on a German-language forum abotu an epic battle between a Pershing and a TIger II in April 1945.The Tiger fired first from 1100 metres but narrowly missed the Pershing.The Pershing crew fired back but short however it was lucky shot for them as their 90 mm shell hit a rocky patch in  fron of the Tiger and bounced up striking the tank in its vulnerable belly( bottom front armour) , punching through and blowing up the tank and its poor crew.The fact is that most Tiger II losses(83%) were the result of mechanical breakdowns and their own crews blowing them up during retreats does not mean that none were killed through hits on the front armour.

5) AS for the JS2 it's not a bad tank but greatly overrated.Its gun was powerful yes but with a rate of fire of 1.25 to 1.5 shells a minutes hardly a  tank you would use alone on a battlefield against German armour(except in ambush) .Soviet optics were not as good to allow long-range shooting, ergonomics  were terrible and crew training was not up to standard, a full 45% of Soviet soldiers were illiterate and unable to understand or read maintenance or operating manuals and drunkenness was prevalent leading to many accidents and careless handling, manufacturing was sloppy with poor quality control and the locally-made tool machines and steel were substandard.However the Soviets were practical people and emphasized mass production and simple designs to overcome flawed manufacturing and inferior training.It's no wonder that between 95 000 to 112 000 Soviet armoured vehicles were destroyed during the war.

The JS2 was a fine design for unsophisticated crews and  for mass production purposes .However had the Soviets been on the defensive it would have been dropped quickly in favour of the T34/85 which despite it's own flaws was probably the best tank the Soviets ever fielded in WWII.My vote in terms of SPGs would go to the SU100.

[tigershuffle]

im sure youve probably already read this before...but its nice to have an insight from someone who actually fought in a Tiger as to what they thought of loadouts and quality etc...though this is only up to '43
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147572 - Interview with Major Gerd Lindemann of DAK - Tiger commander

[frinik]

Th  emixed rounds Lindemann is referring to are probably Hohlgranate HL 39 a HEAT type of explosive round used against both armoru and soft skin targets but these were gradually replaced by AP rounds in late 1943 on the East front as the war turned more and more into a desperate fight for survival for the Wehrmacht and the Tigers became more and more fire brigades taking on superior Soviet armoured forces and trying to stave off breakthroughs and offensives.

[Mistwalker]

His own research in German archives did not turn up any evidence of poor manufacturing or defective quality control in the manufacturing fo the TIger II nor of its armour.This does not mean that some models may not have had quality issues perhaps due to disruptions in production but to generalise and assert  " that it is known" ??By whom?It sounds to me like unsubstantiated.

1. It's a fact, that they used 80-82 armor plates for Tiger 2 side armor, Panther front armor and other german vehicles for production unification. 2. It's a fact, that 80-82 mm armor plates of at least some of mid-44 german tanks had low percent of nickel. So here we are. Armor could still be of good quality, but with low values of nickel and molybdenum it could have lower resistance to shell penetration.

Except for King Tiger which is known for it's bad quality armor.Mistwalker your source for this statement?

Authors of books that point to russian documents about research in the labs of 48th Central Science and Research Institute. It's really not what you call "bad quality armor" - it's what you call "lack of alloys".

Putting aside any doubts on the objectivity of Soviet tests( after all the same might be said of all sides testing the other's armopur) it would be interesting to fidn out in what condition was that Tiger II found or captured?

Condition doesn't matter here. Armor of captured Tiger 2 didn't have any molybdenum. Instead vanadium was used.

As for Soviet research I have my doubts considering how closely it was controlled by the Party and Stalinist orthodoxy .I wouldn't put the Soviets above manipulating results to boost the morale of the Soviet tank corps

It's not propaganda. It was documented research that has been conducted for developing offensive and deffensive measures against german tanks. So It couldn't be more objective than it was.

the fact that German steel, while still good, was nowhere near as good after summer 1944 but defintely better than Soviet steel used for their heavy armour.

Not always. For example 90 mm rolled side armor of IS-2 gave better protection than casted 100 mm lower front armor. It's just that there were many problems with production of armor thicker than 90 mm.

Mistwalker we are not talking about the same Tiger II tank then.I have here the figures for both Porsche and Henschel type turrets for the Tiger II taken from the Tiger Information centre and corroborated by other sources as well(actually I made a mistake too since it's 40 mm not 60)....

Armor layout: (all angles from horizontal)[8] Hull front (lower) 100 mm (3.9 in) at 40° (upper) 150 mm (5.9 in) at 40°

Yeah, lower front hull was really 100 mm, sry. But definitely not 60.

ACtually you'll find that information in about a dozen different sources, Thomas Jentz's books, the Tiger Information Centre, Panzerworld, The Axis History Forum, Achtung panzer, The Bundeswehr military information centre, the Muenster Panzer museum website, wikipedia even. All sources agree that the standard complement for the Tiger I was 60 and 32 (AP-HE)

Post link or quote please. I have Jentz's books too and he states that it was recommended to load 50% of AP and 50% of HE shells. It really looks more correct - Tiger wasn't antitank vehicle.

5) AS for the JS2 it's not a bad tank but greatly overrated.Its gun was powerful yes but with a rate of fire of 1.25 to 1.5 shells a minutes hardly a  tank you would use alone on a battlefield against German armour(except in ambush).

IS-2 was used mainly as heavy tank of breakthrough and fired at trenches, buildings and fortifications. 122-mm was great for that role.

Soviet optics were not as good to allow long-range shooting

At first yes, but by 1944 on IS and T-34-85 tanks it was as good as german.

The JS2 was a fine design for unsophisticated crews and  for mass production purposes

Actually all IS-2 commanders were experienced officers and drivers were at least sergeants, more often - junior grade lieutenants.  There weren't much of IS-2 produced during WW2 too compared to Tigers.

[Mistwalker]

It kind of seems your source of Russian tests is not a total.. there are extreme examples.. from what I read the Germans had enough high quality steel up till the last of 1944, Early 1945. 

Then why german armor in second half of 1944 in many cases suddenly started to crack under hits of AP shells? Here's example tab (in russian).  http://img198.imageshack.us/i/resja.jpg/ It shows that compared to Tiger I amount of nickel in late Panther's armor (except 60-mm lower hull front plate) is low.

I played some scenarios where I setup some Pz3 and 4's and they eventually broke my tank through it frontal armor..

KV is a simple kill for Pz4 with KwK 40. Long-barreled Pz3 can damage KV with APCR round. And even short-barreled Pz4 can in some cases knock out KV with HEAT.

  Russian propaganda!!!!  Think about it, if this was that easy, you'd seen em all over the battleground with holes in the front everywhere or sometimes.. instead of NEVER!!!!!!

It wasn't easy. In the test 122 shell penetrated front armor only in the weld area (600m distance), others didn't even count as conditional.

I'll look at then.

Good luck. 
http://img585.imageshack.us/i/a2035e66ee09.gif/ http://img263.imageshack.us/i/69d11cf14a99.gif/

blaaa, I can not find my test results I found from year past, but I remember with the same round the 100mm was better than the 122 up to like 1000 meters...

When? Because there are different types of shells. In Cold War times 100mm AP was better. But in 1944 they're been almost the same, plus 122mm shell was heavier and because of that worked better on sloped armor. 

but Russian had such poor optics, that 1500 meters was 100% luck back then..

Optics were good in 1944.

Do you do modifications for this mod or know someone who does??

I do modifications for many of the vehicles and add new vehicles too.

no Tiger II frontal upper plate has even been penetrated in the battlefield!  I did not say lower plate or turret front. although the upper plate makes up the biggest part.

And? There were enough King Tigers, destroyed by 57 and 85 mm side hits. Remember Lisow for example, where a whole battalion of King Tigers has been annihilated (however by a cost of tank brigade). There were mostly T-34-85 against tigers and probably some of IS-2 too.

do you know how to fix gun damage? 

No.  Still that's a real problem sometimes.