Graviteam

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..

  Slight fixes for some of the heavy tanks that I thought were getting killed too easy by mediocre guns at long range..
                    let me know what you all think.. feedback is welcome!

Readme 1.2



Armor Thickness fix 1.2 for Steel Fury - Jan 09 2011
For Steel Panzer mod 1.5 only

Values for some slightly fixed.
nothing big changed
Exaple of stock SP-1.5 mod armor values:

increased the main Heavy tanks from 2000-2100 armor_str
as in SF1942 seems like those mosters are sometimes a little weak on long range hits from
mid grade weapons.
 Going for realisim not ballance or politics.




from : to

Russian

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.

moderately improved values

------------------------------------------------
instructions
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Drop folder " armor_thickness_fix11 " in your SF MODS folder, then install with JSGME. Use with Steel Panzer 1.5 mod only, install after SP15.



Scotty


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

Hi Scotty!

Thanks for the effort, I think a lot of time went into the armour values for the mod. Now, as for my 2cents worth, not intending to raise any controversy here  :D

There was a previous thread here on the matter:

http://graviteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=880.15 (http://graviteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=880.15)

The gist of it being, there are 2 'elements' to armour thickness as it's handled in Steel Fury:

• The 'armour_thick' parameters in the tech_cfg files
• The armour maps, in .tga format, for each vehicle which acts like a 'skin'

An example of an armour-map 'skin' (for the Panther tank); Lighter = thicker; Darker = thinner:
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Hbtk24rNEPw/TMwftmM9FbI/AAAAAAAAAB4/n7THjGXnEz0/s800/PzVmap.jpg)

The 'armour_thick' value defines the maximum armour thickness for the vehicle (by the way, it can be any other value as well), which is modified by the RGB values in the related armour map tga.

For example, the 'armour_thick' of the Panzer IV being '50', and the side-armour area on the armour-map 'skin' having a RGB value of '60':

The derived side-armour thickness is : 50 x 60 /100 = 30mm

What are the other parameters : arm_fwd, arm_side, arm_back and arm_up?
They're for the AI to consider whether to take a shot at the vehicle.

I've observed that the AI (friendly and enemy) doesn't just blaze away at everything in sight, there's some calculation about whether their limited ammunition will actually inflict any damage. For instance, you won't see it spraying MG bullets at enemy tanks which are buttoned-up,

By the way, there are other factors such as quality / brittleness of the steel ... Not going to go there... It's endless ;D

Thanks,

Note: I typed this while Kyth was posting an explanation that appears just above it. If this is the gospel, then I have my answer. But here's another possible way to look at it, and I wonder if it has any merit. For one thing, I don't quite understand why you'd need to use a color value on a texture, when you can create definitive values on the 3D part itself. Why the need to use two factors in this way? Anyway, read below, and comment on this or Kyth's post.

===============================================
I'd like to understand how armor values are applied in the files. Let me quote from the King Tiger cited above:


If I understand this armor system correctly (and I have no confidence that I do; hehehe, that's why I'm asking)...

The first value on an armor line is an actual thickness of the metal and the second is the thickness with sloping taken into account, at a straight-on penetration angle? Thus, in this example the forward armor is 160mm thick if hit at an angle perpendicular to the ground, due to the slope. The sides and back, and bottom, however don't slope and thus have just the one value.

One reason I'm not sure is why then there'd be a need for the (overall) armor_thick value, if there are separate lines for the front, top, sides and bottom.  Also, why are there no "turret" values? IIRC, the turrets usually had slopes, and thicker armor overall than the corresponding hull values.

We're going to have to know how to properly apply these values if we're going to build additional tanks from scratch. And we'll also need to know how to test it; is there any kind of way to put a vehicle on an in-game "proving ground" where we can lob some shells at it, get some log files that show the effects of hits with and without penetration....? And to test any new guns/ordnance we might put on a new vehicles?

  thanks for the kind help kyth.. so I guess that I am not editing armor as a whole... and only part of it.
 usually the harder the more brittle to some extent, like titanium is harder than Tungsten, but is much more brittle --  there is a catch 22 there..  but darn, some of the Russian and allied steel was not much harder than lead or gold --- yeah, that is a whole other story...
   The idea is not to give something more to make it better, but to make it more real... opinions always vary on this subject of WW2 armor.. because of the slope, and quality of steel facts.
 So I understand after reading the threat, that slope is in effect in the game.. so I need to do some tweeking (less values) for the tanks..

  What I do not understand it the how the "Armor map.tga" has anything to do with the values of the armor, it is just a picture, maybe there is some kind of program I need to look into it more depth.
 How do you find this info?
..
feel free to voice opinions.. you have made great efforts to help... much thanks

   I too wonder why there are not turret calues, I remember in the Panzer Commander files the all tanks had Front, side, top, rear armor values, as well as top front side and rear turret values.
  I assume SF1942 just uses the front value for the front turret .. probably good enough.. I remember in Panzer Commander the patched Tiger II had the most at 195mm front corrected for slope and quality.. the front turret have 215mm.. pretty close..
  It seems most of the tanks values were does by many people and most agreed with the overall values..

 the values in Steel Fury do not seem to be in mm.. everything is slightly less.. but off
 there is much debate of who has what, esp when you add slope and steel quality..
 Germans had better steel, Russians probably not so much, but seems like Russians had more deg slope, so that has to factor in for overall value ..

I read those link about, seems I am not the only one who things some of the values are off.. a lot of people have made great strides in this sim..

  I know the 100mm values of a king tiger vs the t-34's 90mm is just way off..
 let me know guys kyth, frinik etc what I can change to make it more real.. I do not think the values for most units are off, but some could be fixed..    I am open to opinions,
  

Thanks Scotty for the good work!Sorry I could not email you my tech_cfg folders as promised but I am recovering from a bronchitis.

To add my 2 cents worth of salt to the debate:

The issue of armour values in always a touchy subject.I agree with Kyth that we have to be cautious when trying to ascribe some values and that not only the tech_cfg files but also the armour .tga (map) files have an impact on the realism and balance in the game.

As well I discovered numerous erros and inconsistencies which led me to made my own corrections.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) I found thta for the same tank model the T34/76 the Soviet model was ascribed 55 mm of frontal thickness while the equivalent German-captured model was given only 47 mm?????There's no evidence suggesting that the Germans in anyway would have decreased the armour thickness fo their captured T34s( unless they were masochists?).I also saw thta basically the T34/85  was given 90mm of front thickness and the TIger II 100mm. 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. However these subjective results comments have been applied to all Tiger IIs without further research to determine whether the damage might have been the result of battle fatigue and the poor quality welding could have been the result of hastily made or improvised repairs on a battlefield.Thomas Jentz in his excellent and well researched books has argued that his meticulous analysis of German technical reports, internal memos has not demonstrated that the Tiger II production suffered from any decrease in either manufacturing quality or quality control. As for the issue of the declining quality of German armour due to the loss of special allows( wolfram,managnese, chromium) this took place only in August 1944 thus for example the Tiger I was not affected, nor were the Panthers produced from 1943 until that date.The Tiger started production in Dec 1943.Even then the quality of German armour was much better then its sSoviet-made counterpart.Thus I don't see how come the value for the quality of the TIger II armour is set at 1950 the same as for the T34./76 whose steel was of poor quality as acknowledged by the Soviet themselves in reports which I read.Likewise the overrated JS2 was plagued by porous armour and poor casting.Still it gets a 2000 rating in the quality of armour????I could  go on and on....MY oon inclination is to make selective chnages when obviously an error has been noted.I have noted many more ranging from undervalued side armour for the German tanks to fanciful shell loads( where did they get the 36, 5, 39 value for the Tiger I for example???The correct minimum value for that tank is 60 pzgr39 and 30 HE.The pzgr40( tungsten cored ) were discontinued after Dec 1943.Similarly there are glaring errors for the Panther whether G(they ascribed it 40 pzgranate 40and only 10 HE) or D and even for the TIger II the figures are wrong.

My inclination has been to correct errors whenever possible and redress the balance .I did it for my own games and if others wish to follow they are welcome and I can communicate my files .

The issue of the sloping effect of the armour is covered in the game engine ballistics and physics.I think we need to be careful not to over armour

I think the reason the turret is not included in the armour values is because as Kyth pointed out it is the armour.tga files that really set those values.Those in the tech_cfg folders are just for the AI or may be for the end of mission stats.

Cheers

Hi Scotty,

Each armour map packs in a lot of information, potentially more information than just the overall values for front /side / rear armour.
For instance, 'applique' armour that only covers a portion of the underlying surface. This can be represented by shading the relevant area with the appropriate shade of grey...

You can use any picture editing program, like GIMP, to check out the RGB (red, green, blue) values for the armour maps.

I assume you have the Object Editor - To see the armour map applied to the 3-D model. Just copy the armour map to the texture folder, convert it to .dds format, and rename it as the 'skin' for the vehicle.  I hope I didn't make it sound too easy  :)

   We are on the same page..one can not rely on Russian sources for info, exaggeration comes to play, many sim files from Russia over due Russian weapons, and diminish German stuff.
   Il-2 and Oleg was big into Russian Uber planes.

  Not trying to bash Russian equipment.
 I think the Russian had the best tank till mid 1942, I like a lot of Russian planes, Yak3, La5fn, La7.
 Mig-15 or Korean war etc.. Su27 , Alfa class subs etc
 But there is bias in sims made.

 We Americans do this too often.. although most Birtish and Americans will tell the hard truth that those Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers were the best tanks..  but when it comes to aircraft.. Americans favor the P51.. "it is the best" they say..  Personally I think it was a good plane, but sick of the bias,
 a Spitfire 14 could out run it, out turn it, out climb it, had cannons.. but could not range to escort the bombers. but on a 1 vs 1 fight, the P51 would be at a big disadvantage vs the Spit14.
 

 Love my country, but No American bias here on equipment, I think in WW2 the US never had the best of anything, on a pure 1vs1 basis - maybe heavy bombers.
      The M26 Pershing, Is-2 were great tanks, but it was the Russian and USA overall manufacturing mass quantities that overwhelmed Germany.
  20 x T34-85's or 20 x M4A3-76mm Sherman tanks surrounding  2 King Tiger's & 4 PZIV's is what won the allies a victory, not face to face engagements... The armor values for the sim or mod might be good for balance, but not realistic.

   the Russian 85's should not be able to penetrate a Panther front armor, maybe on a lower hul shot at close range 200m... but not on th norm-  an Is-2 could at 1000-1200m
  I have read that there is no accounts or proven facts that a front plate of a Tiger II has ever been documented to been penetrated during combat in WWII. Russian tests my show a 122mm can do it at 200-400m, I'm sure the Russian 100m gun (much better than 122) would also.
     Of course out of the 430 Tiger II's made, most were KO'd by aircraft, side or rear shots etc or disabled and left.    Not sure about armor thickens of the Tiger II, I hear 160mm and another say 100mm.


  I'm not trying to make it and others supertanks, just accurate.. Those tanks could be KO'ed with side and rear shots.... 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.. might be good balance, but in real life it would not happen..
 Having to use tactics and wait in the brush for it or them to come by so I can take a side or flank shot in more in line for what actual tactics used.
 
   changing some of the armor values is the only answer
    looks like you may have beaten me to this, like to see your improved armor files sometime frinik

I'm certainly glad to hear people come down on the side of accuracy, independent of any political or nationalistic bias.

If we can all agree that we want things to be "accurate"... then we should move towards creating a set of documented changes to the stock files to create a level playing field. So, if we find that the developers created an "ueber" Russian tank, ok, fine, let's un-ueber it, and have a document stored here somewhere that tells you what tank, what file, what line, and what value to alter.

That way, we'll have a shot at having more accurate files across all our games, so that we're talking the same language, so to speak.

Debates, proof presentation, research, etc., can and should continue here, since there'll probably never be a "last word" on any one subject.

As to frinik's comments about the one month of lower-quality German armor due to a shortage of a key alloy....  ::) I think it's great he can lay his hand on a document like that. However, let's not geek out on micro-details. My opinion is, we should strive for a "representative" version of any vehicle or weapon, get those figures right, and leave it at that. If there is a distinct need to have multiple versions of a vehicle or weapon (such as an early and late version), so be it, but in the earlier example, I don't see much gained by having a special "August 1944 low quality armor" version of every vehicle in the Wehrmacht inventory, only to be used by scenario designers creating historical scenarios in 1945. That's getting stoooopid. :)

I'll be happy if we can arrive at agreed-upon, bias-free standard models for all vehicles.

The easiest way is a coefficient "armor_str" correction to increase/decrease armor.
//armor strength
armor_str = 2000;
Approximately every hundred ~ 10mm armor.
It means if we have armor_str = 2100 it does that we'll get additional 10mm of armor.
And if armor_str = 1900 means we've lost 10mm of armor.

Are you saying, lockie, that we should

NOT make any changes to values in the vehicles various armor lines

but instead

Add a armor_str value line and change all the vehicles' values at once?


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

Perhaps we should use a mixture of these methods, depending on which will get the desired accuracy with the least amount of editing?

   Most of the values do not seem to be too far off, esp the stock game, it is more the modded files...
 Say the T34-85. should be slightly less, the armor quality should be slightly less for Russian tanks than German, not the other was..
 
    I have been looking into the armor files, and going to renew the mod.. No 2 people are going to agree on what should be what, but I do not want to over mod.
  The files above are not work or going to work except the Armor thick.. but boosting that to make the frontal plate of a Panther correct would also boost the side armor too much, and make it less real...
  for the 6-7 tanks I plan on doing for now... I need to take all the info down from both files.

  I will post the results here, and ask for feedback on what you all think is correct or close to it.
 No one wants to be in a  Is-2 and be killed from a Pz4 from front at 1000 meters.. a Panther needed to be around 700 meters to penetrate the front armor of a Is-2, a Il-2 needed to be like 1200 meters to kill a Panther from the front top hull etc.. be nice to at least make sure it is kind of close by 25-30% in meters
   a T34 85 killing a King Tiger at 1500 meters is like WAY OFF and needs to be fixed.
     I've researched tank armor for 15 years, but I am no pro either... I'll get it close I hope, and bettr with you guy's help.

 see ya

Actually, NO. This coefficient is a constant, which depends on what type of armor is (homogeneous, face-hardened).
There is a formula: b = (V * P^0.5)/(K*d^0.5). As I remember by Jacob de Marre.
where K is armor_str
Aproximately K=(1800-2400).
But if we want just simply increased the armor thickness with purpose of realism/unrealism/comfort/... etc. We've a possibility simply playing vs coefficient and get a necessary result ;)
For example, I've installed armor_str=2150 for IS-2 as myself convenience.

 Even if I convert the TGA to dds, it will not load in the object editor, only .go files, whatever they are.

 No matter, I looked through a bunch if the armor map.tga files, and it seems most everything is "close" to correct... I know how to change them and pack them back in, but I haven't seen much wrong, the CFG files are where they seem to mess up on like armor thick, quality.. need to work on them some. testing now

 :D

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  :)

 Well I was close, I saved the file just as panther.dds in that same folder... have much to learn..

 thanks from a noob

Yup!That,s whatI did a while ago I tweaked the armour_str values as per  approximate historical data;

I have set the Tiger II and Panther at 2000, the Tiger I at 2100 to reflect it's high quality armour and welding and lowered the T34s to 1950. You can also play withthe armour_frail values adjusting the fail values for the Sov tank to 0.5 or 0.6 depending on the tank.I have left the JS2 untouched although the quality of its armour was questionable according to some Soviet reports which emphasized the sloppy workmanship, the porous and brittleness prone armour etc.The JS, while not a bad tank, was not the juggernaut that Soviet propaganda seem to have made it out to be.

Some values also need to be adjusted in the common res files as muzzle velocity values are in some cases underevaluated, the weight of some nshells is wrong etc.

Still it does not hurt to correct some of the armour side, rear, top or front values as they are erroneous in some cases and inconsistent in others.

Armor frail values???

Yikes...

I think what's needed here is a FULL, detailed explanation of what goes into a vehicle file, and what the values mean, and how to adjust them.... all in one place.

There's some really good info in this thread, but it's not encapsulated, so it's hard to ferret out.

Is anyone keeping track of it, or creating a complete vehicle file authoring tutorial?

Don't forget, that after shells parameters would have been re-adjusted(velocity, weight...), you should've to re-adjust a gunsight also ;)

:)
The parameter armor_frail is responsible for the quantity of debris(bits of armor) inside panzer. Means: bigger armor_frail - much quantity of debris. It's acceptable for the german panzer that armor_frail=0.3, for the soviet (0.6-0.9), imho.

    Yeah, the plan is, to go through the CFG files and tweek those attributes you are talking about, the armor quality,
 here is the Is2.engcfg file for example

   //òîëùèíà áðîíè, ìì (ïðè óðîâíå 100)
   armor_thick   =   88;
   //áðîíÿ äëÿ ÈÈ
   arm_fwd      =   95;
   arm_side   =   70;
   arm_back   =   60;
   arm_up      =   20;

   //âèäèìîñòü
   vis_factor   =   2.5;

   //êàðòà áðîíèðîâàíèÿ
   armor_map   =   armor_maps\is2_armor.tga;
   //êà÷åñòâî áðîíèðîâàíèÿ
   armor_qual   =   0.8;
   //õðóïêîñòü áðîíè
   armor_frail   =   0.8;
   //êîýôôèöèýíò ñíàðÿäîñòîéêîñòè
   armor_str   =   2000;

  I'd like to know what armor frail does.. would lowering it make your tank more vulnerable or stronger??

  I make a test map, tank targets at out to 2000 meters and closer.. in my King Tiger, I had a few T-35-85 out at 1400-1700 meters...  I kept my front faced at them at all time... I took 10-14 hits at around 1500 meters, but managed to get damaged after awhile.. the Russian 85 was good, but even point blank I do not think it would go through 160mm of slopped high quality plate... I have much more testing to do, as I did have a Is-2 out there close to them.. the 122 should still not go through a King Tiger front plate or turret at over 1000 meters, maybe 400-500m.
  the Il-2 itself is a pretty good tank good front and turret armors all around.. going to face a panther in it to test..
Going to try it with a T-34 and see if I can blast through the front or side of a Tiger at ranged..
 



  the TGA file values looked pretty close... I looked though a bunch of them, and I'm not expert bu far, but they seemed to be pretty close.. using gray color from dark to light 0-255 that = mm and the sim is suppose to use this in Steel Fury Kharkov 1942 for calculating armor

 like the front plate on a Tiger 1 was 100 etc... the T34-85 was like 52 front plate

here are some examples

upper Front plate: Tiger II = 150, Panther = 85
lower front plate: Tiger II = 120, Panther = 65
Side armor plate: Tiger II = 80, Panther = 40
Rear upper+lower: Tiger II = 80, Panther= 40
Top plate armor: Tiger II = 40, Panther = 17

Turret mal front: Tiger II = 200, Panther = 105 (mallet is small thing supporting main gun on front turret)
Turret front Front: Tiger II = 180, Panther = 85
Turret side: Tiger II = 80, Panther 40
Turret rear: Tiger II = 80, Panther 40
Turret top: Tiger II = 40, Panther 17

 There is other graphics parts also, but you get the meaning

    None of them seem to be way off, maybe the IS-2 (or is it really an IS-1?) could use some beefing up in the graphics file.
   Some of those tank TGA files looked easy to read while others like the KV1 was scrambled up..

 Things mainly need to be tweeked in the CFG files.  just a little!



     

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

  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.

  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....

Frinik wrote:


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).

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).

 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

 Please view org message for new modified file and readme

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,
 

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.


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).

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

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.

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

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


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. 


And this was a reality. ;)

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.

That's correct.

Suppose, someone from developers came here ;)

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.

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

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 real batlle, as you said, but there is.
http://img191.imageshack.us/i/phocathumbl037.jpg/ (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.  ;D

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

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


See above.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.


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".

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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/ (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.
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.

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.

Good luck.  ;D
http://img585.imageshack.us/i/a2035e66ee09.gif/ (http://img585.imageshack.us/i/a2035e66ee09.gif/) http://img263.imageshack.us/i/69d11cf14a99.gif/ (http://img263.imageshack.us/i/69d11cf14a99.gif/)

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. 

Optics were good in 1944.

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

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.


No.  :( Still that's a real problem sometimes.

It is wonderful that we can discuss and debate this stuff, cite sources, and delve into it. I hope everyone maintains a civil attitude and remembers that being challenged on a fact or figure is not a personal attack. It's just an attempt to arrive at facts and figures we all can agree upon.

Carry on then...

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.

Sorry Mistwalker but lots of IS/JS2 were produced :3854 for both 1943 and 1944 versions compared to only a maximum of 1476 Panzer VI ausf. E/H Tiger I ( some sources say 1447).if you're sceptical just google it and you'll see the respective production output for both.

This is a comment on the JS2.While the design was good for its time, Western observers tended to criticize Soviet tanks for their lack of finish and crude construction. The Soviets responded that it was warranted considering the need for wartime expediency and the typically low battlefield life of their tanks.[5]

I'll have to research more on the issue of quality of Optics for Soviet tanks.However I am fairly sure that German optics which were( and still are; it's interesting to see those high end Japanese and Korean digital cameras outfitted with Zeiss(Sony), Schneider-Kreuznach  or Leitz optics and zooms) the best in the World at that time would easily surpass the Soviet made ones.Whether the latter would be good enough to allow long-range shooting remains to be verified..

I'll also have to find that report on the issue of the poor quality of the JS2 armour.

Considering that based on Soviet reports estimating the average life expectancy of their tank crews to be 3 1/2 weeks in 1944 how could their crews be experienced all around?Mind you, starting in mid 1944, the Germans were also experiencing the same with more and more inexperienced crews, decreasing training due to shortages of fuel and the need to replace staggering losses etc.


 
 

That is not correct. 3395 of  JS-2 and 107 of JS-85 were produced.  2245 of JS-2  were produced in 1943-44 and 1140 were produced already in 1945. About 400 of those didn't even get to the frontline, because war has ended.

Late soviet sights were copied from pz3 sights and allowed 4x magnification (like TSH-15 and TSH-17).

I have everything right here in the books of colonel Jeltov and other authors. As I said it happened often only with casted armor (i.e. turret and front) and mostly only on early machines. Fire tests with KwK 36 have shown that side armor gave better protection than lower front and turret armor. I can write details and post penetration curves. Interested?
Do I need to explain what means "average"?  :) T-34's were issued to tank brigades and didn't live long because of poor protection against most common german AT guns like PaK 40. Heavy tanks were issued to separate guard regiments of breakthrough with most experienced personnel, much like german Schwere Panzerabteilungs.

   I think you all are pretty knowledgeable on this topic, there are some rights and wrongs, but some of the history we study is not always laid down black and white, nor do 2 anthers have the same stats or tests revel the same statistics either.
   It is not clear cut and dry the optics of the IS-2 were all poor or where good.

 Same with the Tiger II's armor quality, not clear cut all of them had poor armor quality..   

   I do not totally discount Russian sources of testing, but as much as I love the Russians, they do fudges rating a bit for propaganda.. The USA did the same before sending troops out in those Sherman Tanks, told the troops they was in the best tank in the world.

     "Look troops, Those King Tigers can be penetrated from the front easy. Look at the tests. So stop running and get out there in ur T34-85 and fight!"

  I seem to take numbers for what they are..  not generalize from a few RARE RARE examples.

   Optics for the JS-2, Armor quality for the King Tiger ?? 
  maybe a few JS-2 did have poor optics, maybe a few King Tigers did have low nickle armor, maybe 99% of JS-2's had good optics, maybe 99% of King Tigers had Good high quality armor.

   They was both good tanks, Face to face at 1500 meters, I'd say the king Tiger would have the big advantage..
But overall the Is-2 was probably a better tank, still VERY strong, at only 45 tons it could go almost anywhere. Tiger II's were HEAVY, transmissions burned up easy, slow in the mud (easy targets), could not cross a lot of bridges. Ran out of gas quicker. Easier for aircraft to go after (slower).

    I'm kinda like frinik, I think the T34-85mm is one of the best tanks of the war for general purpose... same with Panther.

    I am sorry if I offended ya with this mod, never intended to make the Tiger II a super weapon, just as it was in real life, it's frontal armor was darn near indestructible, esp at longer ranges.

  if I'm in a T-34-85 going up against a KT at long range, I do not want to be politically correct, but historically correct.. and not be able to kill it from the front, rather have to race for the woods, and sneak around the battlefield, and surprise it with a side shot.. use tactics... makes it more fun.
   
    have a good day

It's clear. We have a lot of info and books about those tanks here. I know some real WW2 tank users from Kubinka too and have been in JS myself, although third variant.   
   

As I said to frinik, it's would be better not to call it "poor armor quality" but "lower resistance to penetration". Even in Steel Fury those are separate parameters.

You seriously think that official archive documents were written for propaganda?

No, nobody said such stupid things. In later years of war it was common tactics to destroy german tanks by _flank_ fire.

Not a bit of offense taken, I just had to point at some incorrect info and answer some "why?" questions.   ;)

It seems that a single case bothers you too much. :) Usually in game even with JS-2 it's very hard to destroy Tiger 2 front-to-front. 

More than a single case.

  Yes, propaganda, it happens now, and most certainly did back then. One had the right to ignore it if one likes.  I being American, know the P51 Mustang was not the best or near the best fighter of the war. Yet you here propaganda all the time, USAAF pilots back in WW2 were often told it was the best aircraft on earth... then swear it was the best after flying it. when they never tested most other planes.

Yet They never flew Yank F4U-4's, Brit Spitfire 14's, Jap N1K2 George, Ruski Yank3, Ger Me-262 etc.
Telling your troops you have great stuff, while showing them the enemy had garbage is a heck of a moral booster...


 So you have been in a JS3 huh? I'd love to see one.
I've only been in 2 tanks- a USA M60 just 9 years ago, someone left the padlock off of it at the VFW where the ol lady plays Bingo-, so me and my son got in and looked around, he was like 5 at the time and it was neat.

   Also back in 1976 there was a guy down the street our  school who used to collect large things in his huge front yards, a train caboose, and a Sherman tank... We'd get in the tank and play (I was probably 12 at the time)..   We did not try and tear anything up..  I remember there was at least 2 hatches to get in and out.. it has been gone from that spot for 25 years now.

    There are the Patton Tank museum just 170 miles south of us... plan to go there sometime soon.
  chat with ya later

Mistwalker, this is not to start a pissing contest(  I am not saying or implying that you are simply stating that I am not! :).

.I am just putting my arguments and opinions and you are putting yours and I like it.Debate is always soemthing  good and you elarn something form itThat is not correct. 3395 of  JS-2 and 107 of JS-85 were produced.  2245 of JS-2  were produced in 1943-44 and 1140 were produced already in 1945. About 400 of those didn't even get to the frontline, because war has ended.

I''ll check another source to see if the numbers you quote tally( the problem is that different sources quote different stats for example I found 4 different stats for the production of the Tiger I ranging from 1447 to 1489) Even if only 3395 JS2 were produced and discounting the 400 that did not make it to the battlefield the 3000 fielded would still make it more than twice as many produced as Tiger Is( with some were kept for training crews in Germany and others were used against the Allies in Tunisia, Sicily,Italy(mainland) and France in 1943-1945.So roughly 1250 Tigers operated on the East Front( 1942-1945) vs 3000 JS2s.As for KV-85s I did not count them.


Late soviet sights were copied from pz3 sights and allowed 4x magnification (like TSH-15 and TSH-17).
Quote.They copied the design however the quality of manufacturing and workmanship( polishing and cristallisation of the glass used ) is not something you can easily copy as they are the result of a long tradition and dedication to quality and require the use of a sophisticated and skilled workforce and machinery. I have a relative who worked for Leitz in Switzerland and also represented Schott AG, a German manufacturer of glass and optics for astronomy,aeronautics, cameras( NASA and ESA use their lenses in their space cameras and telescopes) and industrial purposes. He told me for example that it took the Japanese camera and optic makers no less than 30 years of hard work, investment and dedication to reach the quality level of German optics before they were able to wrest the photographic and camera optics market from them . He told me that it was easy for the Taiwanese, Koreans and I assume today's Chinese top copy German or Swiss designs( binoculars, magnifying glasses. Swiss army knives) and sell their "copies" at a fraction of the price of the real thing but they were unable to replicate the quality of the optics because they lacked the know-how and were more focussed on mass production than craftsmanship.I am fairly certain that this is exactly what happened with Soviet copies of German optics.They were able to successfully copy the German designs and probably produce a better quality of optics than their own designs but they lacked the expertise, specialised labour force and machinery( which btw the Germans used to supply then with until 1941) to reach German quality and sophistication. Interestingly enough, as soon as they were able to ,the Soviets rebuilt Zeiss's Jena factory in the GDR  (refraining from pillaging or dismantling the machinery) so it could supply them with quality, military optics which it did until the Wall collapsed in 1990.This is the reason the Allies supplied a lot of optics to the Soviets through the land-lease agreement.

They was both good tanks, Face to face at 1500 meters, I'd say the king Tiger would have the big advantage..
But overall the Is-2 was probably a better tank, still VERY strong, at only 45 tons it could go almost anywhere. Tiger II's were HEAVY, transmissions burned up easy, slow in the mud (easy targets), could not cross a lot of bridges. Ran out of gas quicker. Easier for aircraft to go after (slower).

The comparison between the JS2 and the Tiger II ( the word Koenigstiger in German refers to the Bengal tiger reknown for its ferocity and large size) to me seems irrelevant.( As for the JS2 being faster to escape an aircraft I think that  whether  a tank goes at 15 or 35 kmph is not going to escape a strafing aircraft flying at over 300 kmph

The JS2 was not primarily conceived to fight the Tiger I nor the Panther( the T34/85, the JS1/KV85, SU85 and 100 on the other hand were designed with those heavy tanks in mind).It was to be used as a replacement for the KV-1 and KV-2 which were either outdated or had proved to be a disappointment. It was meant to be used against fortified positions,pillboxes, artillery and AT emplacement, MG nests , bunkers, etc. At 45 tons I am not sure it could either use every bridge in Eastern Europe.

The Tiger II contrary to the legend was not slow actually it's top speed was a good as the Panther's( however it was prevented from using its top speed because the transmission would not have been strong enough for its weight).It's turret's rotation rate was as a good as the Sherman's, its wide caterpillars gave it good cross-country abilities and its ground pressure ratio was almost the same as the Panther's.It had outstanding optics, an excellent gun, could carry up to 86 shells and was well armoured. It could take on and destroy most Soviet and Allied armour at distances of 1500 to 3000 metres( the latter in ideal conditions).It could shoot 7 to 8 rounds a minute compared to only 1.25 to 1.5 rounds a minute for the 1944 JS2 model( incidentally in SF the JS reloads way too fast.I left it as it is but....).However it was designed and built at a time when Germany was still capable of offensive action with battlefield supremacy in mind.It was not built withfor the Germany of 1944-45 in mind; a country on the defensive and retreating on all fronts , chronically short of fuel, under constant bombings/disruptions of production, spare parts and transportation facilities and manned by crews that were deteriorating in quality and experience.Had this tank been fielded in early to mid 1943 it would have been a devastating weapon.It was designed withand by the Germany of early to mid 1943 which did not yet face all these odds. It suffered from excessive weight which put a strain on the suspension( the transmission problem was solved in autumn 1944), required constant and careful maintenance( not always possible in the disastrous war situation of 1944-45) was underpowered (although this was going to addressed in early 1945) and it could not always use standard bridges and was restricted to large avenues.Its high fuel consumption only became a problem because of Germany's accute fuel shortages after May 1944.

That being said I think the Panther was a much better design and the Panther II equipped with the Kwk 43 L/71 of the Tiger II would have probably been the ideal mix between the 2 tanks giving the Panther II the better ratio between power and weight and the reliability of the Panther ausf.G and the formidable offensive punch of the KwK43 with the armour to boot. As for the JS3 we will never know what they(Panther II and JS3) would have made the mid 1945 battlefield look like....


The JS2 was not a bad tank but aside from being easier to maintain and more reliable mechanically (because of simpler design and lighter weight) it did not have anything that made it into an icon. The gun was powerful but had the JS could only carry 28 shells, had a painfully low reload rate, it was cramped  and while it had thick armour from rweports that I read the quality of the armour of its turret may have been of unevenl quality and prone to cracks and brittleness.However it had one major advantage; the Soviets had no shortage of fuel, could mass produce their JS, had the advantage of being on the offensive with increased supremacy in the air, the ability to recover their damaged armour and to easily replace their material and human losses.The JS2 would not have been a good idea for the Soviet army of of 1942 until mid 1943 but it was great for the Soviet army of later 1943 onwards.

Finally quote" You seriously think that official archive documents were written for propaganda?

Remember that that tank bore the name of Josef Stalin and the dictator was not one to be contradicted or angered or his reputation slighted.He read or had knowledge about everything or almost that went on in the Red paradise. He had had people executed/purged/gulaged for the slightest pretext or because they displeased him etc( The story of imposing Lyssenko's scientific views despite evidence to the contrary is one example).

While Hitler was a raving, murderous, maniac,  Stalin was much more dangerous: he was a cold, calculating, murderous, psychopathic paranoiac...That being said I would not dispute official archives documents but simply read them with what I said above in mind.

Cheers

Of course the Soviets had this kind of propaganda too - for example  lieutenant Jerohin that knocked out 6 Ferdinands and Oskin that knocked out 3 King Tigers in T-34-85. And of course that never really happened - in case with Jerohin that could be Stugs and/or Marders and in case with Oskin he could (or could not) knock out 1 Tiger from the ambush but others were destroyed by surrounding units. You can count in "the best of the best T-34" here too.
However you have to distinguish between pamphlets that were made for morale boost and real research data with exact numbers that examined real strengths and weaknesses of the enemy tanks. Even propaganda never said anything like "soldiers, you can kill Tiger with your 76mm AP front-to-front, so get up and fight!" On the contrary - soldiers were given correct and detailed reccomendations of how to take out enemy tanks: http://img832.imageshack.us/i/picturede.jpg/ (http://img832.imageshack.us/i/picturede.jpg/)
And if you cant trust research data then what can you trust? EVERYTHING might be propaganda. :)

Ok, then if something like this will happen again, post screenshots here and we'll look at it.

By the way, Instead of modifying armor I recommend  to change bb_round from 5 to 10 for better AI maneuvering.


And if you add Tiger 2?  ;)

Right. And what optics and equipment you think they used  in the later years of war for tank sights production? :)

Frinik, even by looking at SF you can tell that such situation (2 single tanks face to face at 1500) is a rarity an exception. :)

I completely agree. Each tank was good for it's purpose.

It's 25 or 24 seconds AFAIR. Average _combat_ fire rate was lower, but just for reloading there was a 20-second rule in non-moving vehicle.

That's almost exactly what I said earlier.

And for what purpose could he order something like test report falsification? And what names 100mm gun and 122mm A-19 field cannon had? 

 They was both good tanks, Face to face at 1500 meters, I'd say the king Tiger would have the big advantage..

Frinik, even by looking at SF you can tell that such situation (2 single tanks face to face at 1500) is a rarity an exception.


Sorry Mistwalker but this is not my quote I think it's Scotty's.!

But speaking of SF;I made a mini mission on the Petrovka map pitting 3 Tiger II against 18 JS2 model 1944.It was no contest; the 18 JS were destroyed( I destroyed 14 of them ) at ranges of 1150 to 1467 metres.I lost one T|iger, mine was mauled (I Iost the driver and radio man) and the 3rd one was severely damaged I played that mission 5 times and same result.I also did one with  a handful of Panthers, Jgdpanthers against JS2s, SU 122 and 152s and T34/85 again no match except that German losses were much higher and I my own tank was killed a couple of times....

I only counted the Tiger I as I tought the JS2 wasdesigned with them i n mind as the Tiger II did not appear on the bttlefield until May 1944 well after the JS 1 and 2 were introduced?Any 492 Tiger II produced probably 400 made it to the East Front still Tiger I and II put together make up only 50 to 60 % of JS2s produced ( I am discounting both JS1 s and KV85) and accepting your lower production output for the JS2.

Re the archives they are documents eventually intended for public consumption not those that were given to J Stalin.But you're right I am playing the Devil's advocate not really disbelieving them.

Peupold a fine company was incidentally founded by a German immigrant using German optical tarditoons and skillmaking.

Re the US and Uk optics provided through the landlease they were primarily intended for airplanes and gun sights but as far as I know the supply was never sufficient and by the time the J|S was under production the landlease had run its course.Iit is unlikely that any were used for the JS2 but  I'll have to research that....


Re the JS3 they were saying on battlfield.ru that it had terrible ergonomics and the field of vision for the commander was not so great.Again we will never know but it would have been a formidable opponent with the traditional Soviet flaws( slow reload, limited shell complement , poor ergonomics and vision but tough armour, good AT gun, mass produced and with the Soviet never facing fuel shortages and enjoying numerical superiority at ever level it s qualities would have mattered more than its defects.

Re the optics for the JS2 I am not saying they were bad but simply nowhere near as good as the German one particularly those of the Tiger II .Add this a a low rate of fire and and only 28 shells to play with and quickly you realise that the JS2 was not meant to take the Tiger II head-on nor to go on the hunt for German armour at long range.The JS crew would have tried to conceal themselves and wait for targets of opportunity but at ranges not exceeding 1200 to 1300 metres in order to make sure that their shot would succeed in disabling heavy German armour.Anything beyong that would have been suicidal unless they had an advantage of 5 or 6 to 1 and air or artillery coverage.Reversely A Panther or Tiger I or II crew would try to spot the JS2 at very long ranges to try disable the tank( tracks or engine) and once a sitting duck then use their optic s and higher rate of fire to hit it at its weak points.

Although yes, as a tank killer Tiger 2 is much better, but it heavily depends not only on tanks used, but on which side the player is and mission itself (contours, scripts, units positions). For example I've seen the situation when Pz3 has met T-34 in a village, fired at it from 30-m distance, then made 180-degree turn and drove away despite the fact that T-34 wasn't even damaged. I thought "WTF?" and launched mission editor. It showed to me that position of the T-34 was just outside attack contour for Germans, and for Pz3 priority of clearing the contour was higher than destruction of the target outside it.

Appr. 1 to 1.7-1.8 ratio. Not very high advantage as I said earlier.

There aren't any secret documents that were given directly to Stalin and public documents. It's all the same and at first wasn't intended for public use. Most of those documents are in Central Archive of Ministry of Defense and strangers (i.e. civilians not related to this in any way) could receive access and work there only after Soviet Union's collapse.

You can say that JS-3 is JS-2 with improved armor and less durable. I'm more interested in JS-7. That was a real juggernaut with 150-mm sloped armor on all sides (except 100 mm lower side hull), 130-mm naval cannon with reloading mechanism and fire rate of 6-8 shots per minute (+5 machineguns), 1050 hp engine, and maneuverability and average speed surpassing that of medium T-34-85. Some of those machines were created and tested in 1948-1949 but never made it to the serial production, because they were too heavy (68 tons) and expensive by Soviet standards.

Here's information from the author of books about armor and archive worker M. Svirin. Some lines from russian translation of the captured document, written by Finnish specialists about T-34-85. Сollection of Special Documents of the Academy of Missile Forces and Artillery, fund 3404, inventory 11, case 345, sheet 6:

"...аrticulated telescopic sight has a great advantage if compared to the sight of T-34 made in 1942-1943 years. Sight transparency is the same as in german sight of 75-mm tank cannon of 1940 year model. Field of view increased by 15%..."

I think that pretty much closes the matter.

Sure,  JS-2 wasn't tank killer. You can see that by looking at AP/HE shell ratio - 8 to 20. AT artillery, SU-85, SU-100 and JSU-122 were better suited for that role. Although that doesn't change fact that 501 Abt. equipped with King Tigers twice suffered heavy losses against the same T-34's and JS-2's. First time near Oglenduv (12 tigers were lost, not a single russian tank was knocked out) and second time near Lisow (heavy losses from both sides,  battalion disbanded soon after that).
According to the one of the surviving german tankers there were ruissian tactics for destroying german heavy tanks in ambush: one russian tank was used as a bait and drove fast in the open space. Germans, feeling safe with superior armor and cannon fired at it from a long distance (usually with first miss because of high speed of the target) revealed themselves an received 122-mm shell from JS or JSU that was already in position and ready to open fire. He said his Tiger in 1944 was destroyed the same way, and only survived crew members were him and commander, who lost his leg.

It seems thta the topic of the respective merits between the JS2 and the TIger II are one of the favourite topics of various fora.I have googled the issue and I found and read no less than 4 different threads in which that topic was extensively debated.

One topic dealt with the qaulity of the JS2 and Tiger II  armour.One guy said that the JS2 - even the late JS2-m model - suffered from unequal quality in its armour because it was not tempered as this allowed a faster production rate and Soviet planners has decided that having more of them was more important than improving their resilience at the expense of production( in other words the tanks and their crews were expendable).TYhis made the armour prone to cracing under repeated hits and greatly increased the incidency of spalling.This would also indicate that the JS2 despite its nominally thick armour would be vulnerable to long range hits from the Kwk 36 L56, KwK 43 L71 and Kwk 42 L70. I remember reading an interesting thread about the respective manufacturing processes for WWII armour( German and Soviet) but that was 2 years ago.I can't remember the name of the website but one guy quoted Soviet sources in which concerns were expressed about the inferior or uneven quality of the steel used for the production of Soviet medium and heavy tanks.

The problem the Soviets were faced until late 1944( when it was obvious to all that the war was definitely lost for Germany) with was to keep their output high in order to replenish their losses( they lost between 93 000 to 112 000 tanks and armoured vehicles from 1941-1945).Without the help provided by the British and Americans in 1942-1943 the Soviet army would have faced a crisis as their losses those years greatly exceeded their production.Only armour supplied by the Allies managed to keep them afloat. In fact only in the first half of 1945 did Soviet output manage to exceed losses.Therefore their choice was clear; since they had an ample supply of manpower and a huge labour force( whether free or slave labour) they could afford to produce flat out and crew their tanks and hope to beat the Germans but outproducing them and outn umbering them on the battlefield.It worked but only because - thanks to Hitler's stupidity - Germany found itself fighting on more than one front and having to divert increasingly scarce resources away from the East front.Stalin had the luck of the Devil; he was saved form oblivion by Hitler's racist and brutal policies which alienated the Soviet populace against German occupation although initially the Germans had been acclaimed as liberators from Soviet tyranny.Then Hitler again saved him by declaring war on the USA and did not finish off the British thus providing Stalin with a lifeline( the landlease) that saved the SU from collapse and distracting German resources starting in mid 1942 that eventually allowed the Red Army to gain superiority on the ground and in the air.

Moving on to another topic why don't we post our best SF pics every week?
That would be nice to share ?Just an idea...

Cheers

Very interesting discussion. I remember reading on LoneSentry a Russian report on a Jadgtiger that was evaluated. They found that the armour, despite its thickness, suffered from severe spalling on shell impact. I imagine in the final stages of the war Germany was under severe strain to maintain production and material availability (especially to construct incredibly material-heavy vehicles) and were forced to accept lower standards of material grade while keeping up defensive appearances with very thick armour.

Comparing Late-war Russian and German tanks generally, having been granted a visit to the Polish Museum of Armour in Poznan's army base (it took 2 months for my passport to clear their controls before I was allowed access!) where they have a large stock of running Soviet tanks from T26's all the way through to the IS-3, you can see how the bloodline carried through to postwar tanks and to modern tanks. Whereas German tanks, latewar particularly, are very visually impressive and seem to act also as an icon for their ideals (adopting an almost medieval lancer on horseback silhouette) their contribution to postwar tank development seems minimal, particularly having gone down dead-ends like front wheel drive.  I find that this extinction of German tank lineage, almost like the dinosaurs, actually makes them even more fascinating!

Also, the Museum of Armour in Poznan recently uncovered a Stug IV in a river, almost completely preserved in the bog and have restored it to full operational condition.  And last year, they discovered a Jagdpanzer buried deep in an old lady's back garden (but only after digging up her neighbours garden by accident..!)


edit> Ah, I see spalling of TigerII's has been raised already!

Also, creating a screenshot thread, as per other sims, would be a great idea.

Comparing Late-war Russian and German tanks generally, having been granted a visit to the Polish Museum of Armour in Poznan's army base (it took 2 months for my passport to clear their controls before I was allowed access!) where they have a large stock of running Soviet tanks from T26's all the way through to the IS-3, you can see how the bloodline carried through to postwar tanks and to modern tanks. Whereas German tanks, latewar particularly, are very visually impressive and seem to act also as an icon for their ideals (adopting an almost medieval lancer on horseback silhouette) their contribution to postwar tank development seems minimal, particularly having gone down dead-ends like front wheel drive.  I find that this extinction of German tank lineage, almost like the dinosaurs, actually makes them even more fascinating!

gibson this issue of the decline in the quality of late war German armour has been debated on several fora.The conlusions based on reports form specialists in that field is that yes German armour manufatcurers had to cope with shortages of crucial allows which they relied on to make quality armour.There may have been also disruptions due to constant bombings particularly in late 1944. However  based on Thomas Jentz's research and an extensive ( 260 pages thick and based on inspections of German manufacturing facilities,captured German armour and the interrogation of German engineers and production foremen) 1946 British report on the quality of WWII German armour, there's no evidence that the quality of German armour deteriorated significantly up until the spring of 1945 when the country was being invaded and the war was practically over.I am not discounting the tests conducted by the Soviets in Kubinka however what is not clear is what was the condition of the tanks they tested ( were they captured intact? Had they been damaged by their crews prior to beign abandoned?Had they been in heavy battles with resulting pre testing damage to the armour? In what condition were they transported to Kubinka and how long after their capture were they tested?).

To lay rest to these arguments once and for all, I think the best way to know would be for a team of experts consisting of metal and production engineeris to inspect and test the armour of the surviving German afvs such as : Panzer VI ausf. B(Tiger II),Panzer V ausf.G (late Panther), Jagdpanzer Tiger( or Jagdtiger), Jagdpanther etc which are found in the various museums in Europe and North America.However this is unlikely to happen unless funding is provided.

There's a very good discussion about WWII armour quality by 2 American experts John W. Schaefer and Robert Livingston which 12 pages long and which I recommend reading.The link is http://yarchive.net/mil/ww2_tank_armor.html

Take the time to read it it's very informative and enlightening in many respects for all WWI buffs and WWII tank sim gamers.

Re your comment about the extinction of the German tank lineage I disagree with it. The Panther which was adopted by the French army until 1950 and provided by the Soviets to Rumania, Bulgaria and other satellites inspired the French to dvelop their own heavy tank the AMX50 which they decided not to put into production( a decision they later regretted).They used the Kwk42 L70 gun of the Panther to manufatcure their own 75 mm gun which their provided to the Israelis and others. The Panther in fact was in many respect the prototype of the MBT of the 60 s, well armoured, mobile, and with a powerful main gun. The German team that created the Leopard 1 in the late fifties consisted largely of engineers and experts who had worked for Porsche and Henschel on the Panther and Tiger II designs and they borrowed quite a bit on what they had learned when they designed the first post war German tank and in itself one of the most influential and successful MBTs of the first generation.In the 1950s the German developed the Jagdpanzer for the newly created Bundeswehr which looked eerily like a twin of the Jadpanzer IV L70 except that it had a 90 mm gun.It remained in sevrice until the 70s.

I would also strongly argue that the German Flakpanzer Gepard and Marder were direct descendants of the WWII Flakpanzer vierling and Marder III.They were very successful and sold to many NATO countries as well.

The Soviets pursued the lineage of the JS and T34s until the mid fifties JS7 and 10 and T54/55 but with the advent of the T62 in the late fifties the concept of the Mbt changed the world of armour with doing away with the old system of ahving light, medium and heavy tanks with a unique concept that would capture the qualities of all 3 categories into one design.The antitank missile spellt the death of the SPGs and that concept was abandoned altogether by all sides in the late sixties.

The Panther ausf. G is in my opinion( biased and personal I totally agree) the best balanced tank of WWII. Had it been put into production in mid 1942 like the Tiger I  - well before Germany experienced fuel and manufacturing disruptions and a marked decline in the quality of crews due to losses and lack of sufficient training - it would have been devastating to the Soviets. Producing 3 to 500 Panthers( ausf A and D ) a month, not an impossible feat, it means that by the Summer 1943 there would have 4 to 5000 of them available with teethings problems under control and ready to be used against the Soviets at Kursk .The Soviets had nothing to oppose them( only T34/76s and KV1s which were outclassed and a handful of SU122 which were not a real threat).By the time the T34/85 and JS1/KV85 came to the battlefield in late 1943 they would have been on the run.

WE ARE BEING SPAMMED TO DEATH AGAIN!!!!I WISH I COULD UNLEASH VIRUSES ON THE SPAMMERS!!!! >:(

I think that's pretty much useless comparison. For each side their own vehicle was clearly better. JS-2 better for Soviet army and Tiger for Wehrmacht.

That's some nonsense, sorry. I don't know where he heard this stuff. All armor was tempered to medium hardness at least. Even problems with spalling happened on cast armor parts because they wanted to increase overall armor hardness. Bad idea - they "overincreased" it. 
 I've already said everything here about this moment. There were problems with quality of casting (turret and front hull were made by casting) and mostly on early vehicles. For example rolled upper front hull part on some late vehicles could withstand a hit from KwK 36 at point-blank range.

There were some real problems with armor, but only in 1942. And yes, SOME of T-34's produced at that time didn't have tempered armor. But number of those tanks wasn't high and problems ended after Stalingrad.

That gives us approximately 1:3 loss ratio in armored vehicles on East front (I'm not counting over 20000 of German APC's). High, yes, but not too impressive.

By the way, what _exactly_ does Jentz say about that?  Does he quote any documents? And where I can look at report details? I want to see it myself, because I have some doubts about that.

As I said tank's condtition doesn't matter at all here. Armor composition won't change even if you shatter it to pieces.

I'd say it's impossible. They produced 380 Panthers/month at production peak (according to Jentz and Muller-Hillebrand). Besides tanks alone won't change anything. Germans didn't have many tanks in 1941, but they defeated, one can even say - destroyed old Red Army with over 20000 tanks (more than 2000 of those were T-34 and KV) in months.

The Soviets had antitank guns. Many antitank guns. :) Tankers rarely fought German machines - it was strongly recommended to avoid tank-to-tank combat in directives. Those who broke panzerwaffe's neck were Soviet AT-gunners.

I´ll have to peruse through my T. Jentz´books to find the chapter related to German armour manufacturing , his conclusions and the sources he used.However the Britsh report can be bought for a few dollars and there are links where you cna read excerpts from it.

I disagree with you 93 000 to 112 000 armoured vehicles lost is impressive.Especially considering that it happened in 4 years and that for 18 months the Germans were on the retreat and outnumbered in every aspect and with 25% at least of their resources tied up either in Italy, in Germany( 20 000 flak 36 which could have been useful on the East front to fight off Soviet armoured thrusts were tied up defending the Reich against Anglo-American ari bombings) and later in France etc...