• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
pbveteran

Auditing the Matilda Tank MK II possible wrong armor values and 38T Ammo

57 posts in this topic

I think it's time for CRS to end the issue with the Matilda II in tier 0.. it's hard or impossible to kill it, not talking about kill credit by detracking, but preventing him to keep shooting.

I really have my doubt that the Matilda hull near the bottom has the correct thickness as seen here from Warthunder:

MattyDownHullArmor_zpssonuxpyf.jpg

MattyDriverSlitArmor_zps0nlkl8cj.jpg

AmmoMatty_zpsgocdpifd.jpg

 

Further more we should look at the 38(t) AP Shell and use the PzGr.(t) umg, which penetrates at 0º

10m - 68mm

100m - 67mm

500m - 57mm 

This chance would give more purpose to the Pz 38(t).. and make it more value, sharing the gunner as the commander is a big disadvantage.

PzGr%20t%20umg_zpsz0liger1.jpg

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rotsechs said:

I kill them. Not always just by kill credit. 

Not the point of the discussion numbers speak for themselves and this as always been an issue in WW2ol for 10 years.. no other vehicle has this supremacy ingame. 

 

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, pbveteran said:

I think it's time for CRS to end the issue with the Matilda II in tier 0.. it's hard or impossible to kill it, not talking about kill credit by detracking, but preventing him to keep shooting.

This is what you said. 

This was one of your points in the discussion.

This is countered by my reply. Due to being able to stop them shooting with tier 0 panzer. Not 88. Not sapper. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rotsechs said:

This is what you said. 

This was one of your points in the discussion.

This is countered by my reply. Due to being able to stop them shooting with tier 0 panzer. Not 88. Not sapper. 

 

HEAT ammo? The maty can be killed with i.e. Stug3B using HEAT proyectiles AFAIK.... but im not a tank player.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kase250 said:

HEAT ammo? The maty can be killed with i.e. Stug3B using HEAT proyectiles AFAIK.... but im not a tank player.

 

I shot HEAT on sap spot multiple times 10m away near perfect 0º no flame...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heat does nothing to a Matilda hull , detracks it if he doesn't kill you 1st or depending if u get him from the rear and bug out of there,  the only way I have had any luck is use AP and be close.  Even degunning is a shear luck thing ( at least that's how I feel about it when I come across one frontal).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I would trust war thunder.  They did not have a Scotsman.

 

ITs true the Matty is a beast.

Its true that tanking in T-0 has always been hard for Axis.

However its also true that prior to the PzH and Pak38 entrance the Matty was even harder to kill and its beastie menace on the BF of the game was truly a fear.  When attacking a BEF town we would count the Matty deaths and our P1 was always to concentrate on killing them off. Matter of fact back then the Allies made a big deal when they where limited in numbers because they would get wiped out and then the supply was anemic, they cost so much that our A13 supply was pretty paltry. Remember back then the Matilda exhaust muffler was the weak spot and a Pak36 could flame the matilda.

After the Matty map, the Allies I think got limited to 3 Max Matties per AB but the cost of the 3rd Matty ate up any additional A13s we could add during RDP unless we hit RDP 4 (?) but where never allowed to add more Matties... However it was not long until the game got the Stu and PzH.. the Cru2 again a late development and by T-1 RDP we could RDP 5 Matties and 3 additional A13s. Someone plz correct me, if I am wrong, but that's what I remember but I played Axis then and was not overly concerned with Allied RDP.

Since then, the Axis have received non historic HEAT TO&E, 37mm ammo with penetration based off of some table nobody has ever seen or found but the very best penetration stats somebody claims to be accurate - which puts the pak36 pretty close to the 2pdr ATG for short range fire.  That was DOC who did that, Then the fantasy HEAT.  So while I understand why this happened and I'm not too concerned outside the fact that the HEAT was over done. Axis have to have some sort of balance in T-0, I don't understand WHY that balance did not resort in actually fielding the CZ47mm ATG and PzJr1 so we could get back or closer to not needing artificial boosts. WE have received a ton of additional models into the game since then and this should have been fleshed out as a P1.  IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stankyus said:

Not sure if I would trust war thunder.  They did not have a Scotsman.

 

ITs true the Matty is a beast.

Its true that tanking in T-0 has always been hard for Axis.

However its also true that prior to the PzH and Pak38 entrance the Matty was even harder to kill and its beastie menace on the BF of the game was truly a fear.  When attacking a BEF town we would count the Matty deaths and our P1 was always to concentrate on killing them off. Matter of fact back then the Allies made a big deal when they where limited in numbers because they would get wiped out and then the supply was anemic, they cost so much that our A13 supply was pretty paltry. Remember back then the Matilda exhaust muffler was the weak spot and a Pak36 could flame the matilda.

After the Matty map, the Allies I think got limited to 3 Max Matties per AB but the cost of the 3rd Matty ate up any additional A13s we could add during RDP unless we hit RDP 4 (?) but where never allowed to add more Matties... However it was not long until the game got the Stu and PzH.. the Cru2 again a late development and by T-1 RDP we could RDP 5 Matties and 3 additional A13s. Someone plz correct me, if I am wrong, but that's what I remember but I played Axis then and was not overly concerned with Allied RDP.

Since then, the Axis have received non historic HEAT TO&E, 37mm ammo with penetration based off of some table nobody has ever seen or found but the very best penetration stats somebody claims to be accurate - which puts the pak36 pretty close to the 2pdr ATG for short range fire.  That was DOC who did that, Then the fantasy HEAT.  So while I understand why this happened and I'm not too concerned outside the fact that the HEAT was over done. Axis have to have some sort of balance in T-0, I don't understand WHY that balance did not resort in actually fielding the CZ47mm ATG and PzJr1 so we could get back or closer to not needing artificial boosts. WE have received a ton of additional models into the game since then and this should have been fleshed out as a P1.  IMHO.

Yepp. lets keep the inbalance and kill the game! Good choice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rotsechs said:

This is what you said. 

This was one of your points in the discussion.

This is countered by my reply. Due to being able to stop them shooting with tier 0 panzer. Not 88. Not sapper. 

 

Roll that beautiful bean footage! I want to see it and what range you are shooting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, atgman said:

Yepp. lets keep the inbalance and kill the game! Good choice!

Not following you here... please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, viper69 said:

Roll that beautiful bean footage! I want to see it and what range you are shooting at.

Trade secrets. Hehe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2018 at 10:09 AM, rotsechs said:

I kill them. Not always just by kill credit. 

You earn the kill.
but he keeps killing for hours

This is also wrong.
You could only gain the kill when the unit gives you the power to kill.

S!

Share this post


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

Trade secrets. Hehe. 

Haha yeah right. I’m invoking the “pics/vids or it didn’t happen” internet rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch this from about 40 mins. You'll just about be able to see me on the south. Stug b.

At 48 mins watch the chat. TheSarg was a Matilda on the east side, quite a long way out. He showed me his rear quarter while on an incline. 49 mins 30 is the killer statement hehe.

 

 

Edited by rotsechs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rotsechs said:

Watch this from about 40 mins. You'll just about be able to see me on the south. Stug b.

At 48 mins watch the chat. TheSarg was a Matilda on the east side, quite a long way out. He showed me his rear quarter while on an incline. 49 mins 30 is the killer statement hehe.

 

 

Nice shot. So rear quarter on the deck to kill it... so we all have to find high ground to the rear of a Matilda. I appreciate the footage my friend and thank you for it. Wasn’t trying to be snotty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rotsechs said:

Watch this from about 40 mins. You'll just about be able to see me on the south. Stug b.

At 48 mins watch the chat. TheSarg was a Matilda on the east side, quite a long way out. He showed me his rear quarter while on an incline. 49 mins 30 is the killer statement hehe.

 

 

That is what i was talking about. I saw some squaddies doing it with the 3B. Nice tanker players. Me not LoL....

Anyway the maty is a beast, very hard to kill at the beginning of the map. This is only for skilled tank players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, stankyus said:

Not sure if I would trust war thunder.  They did not have a Scotsman.

 

xD how can you compare one guy probably doing volunteer work, with a team of historical researchers from multiple countries, who even found out errors in some technical books about tanks. Plus it's a very popular game you have numerous of people that have contributed to fixing the game with multiple real documents to back up changes.

One of the latest visits of warthunder devs they made some armor thickness measurements:

https://warthunder.com/en/news/5782-development-to-minnesota-for-the-abrams-en

When was the last time CRS measure real life armor thickness with ultrasonic gauges, magnetic non-linear rulers, calipers, and photo telemetrics.. xD never.

I also remember a discussion of the JU 87 D5 dive brakes

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/208481-modifications-to-stuka-ju87/

I'm pretty sure WW2ol has a lot of mistakes in the damage and armor model, for once it's closed and not transparent to everyone so you can't know if something is broken, incorrect or working as expected. Doesn't the tiger have now an unrealistic turret turn ratio ?.. The doesn't even say with shells you have in your tank just AP or HE or APHE... not like PzGr 34 (t) etc..

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, pbveteran said:

xD how can you compare one guy probably doing volunteer work, with a team of historical researchers from multiple countries, who even found out errors in some technical books about tanks. Plus it's a very popular game you have numerous of people that have contributed to fixing the game with multiple real documents to back up changes.

One of the latest visits of warthunder devs they made some armor thickness measurements:

https://warthunder.com/en/news/5782-development-to-minnesota-for-the-abrams-en

 

I also remember a discussion of the JU 87 D5 dive brakes

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/208481-modifications-to-stuka-ju87/

I'm pretty sure WW2ol has a lot of mistakes in the damage and armor model, for once it's close and not transparent to everyone so you can't know if something is broken, incorrect or working as expected. Doesn't the tiger have now an unrealistic turret turn ratio ?.. The doesn't even say with shells you have in your tank just AP or HE or APHE... not like PzGr 34 (t) etc..

With all the respect towards you, but what I do not understand is if WW2OL is so bad and has so many failures which is the reason why you keep coming to the forums constantly to demand changes and improvements. I think you have to have a bit of coherence. Obviously I think it's great that you do not want to pay or collaborate with the game but it does not seem right to me that you are constantly demanding improvements and constantly criticizing a game that currently we keep alive the community, we are the ones who pay to keep it alive together with the volunteers of CRS who are like me, players who do not want to see the game die. It's like the Unreal4 engine thread, it was an interesting thread to read, I can not participate because my low technical levels of English without using the google translator is very difficult to me (I always try not to use it ...), but I enjoyed reading people, until they have already begun to arrive certain FTP users to literally destroy the thread, it is a pity the lack of empathy that there is, is what is in the XXI Century.

As I have said on other occasions, I have played WT a lot, it certainly has a pretty good damage model. WW2OL also has a great damage model, it has flaws, of course, WT also has them and many. According to you it seems that WT is the holy grail of the balisitic calculations by the beautiful death cam etc. but it is not like that. You keep insisting that the projectiles are only AP HE etc. It's false, that's what it looks like in the game interface. The same thing already told you by a CRS member and you contradicted the developer about that. If a development member tells you that the game has APCBC APCBR projectiles etc. It will be true ... isnt it? I will at least believe him more than you, sincerely.

If you really like this game and feel passion and want to be improved, make a simple DLC and put your two cents. I do not know if you paid before you got angry and stopped paying, I do not know. Unfortunately, in this game things do not happen by magic. It seems right that you do not pay, of course, but you have to be coherent too. This game is not like WT, pay to win,  etc. It's another game model, there are people who like it and people who do not like it, it's simple.

As I say, I played a lot WT (and keep playin ocassionally) and it is a simple "casual semi simulator" of battle matches of 15 20 mins. Besides, WT is much more modern, it offers modern interface modern UI modern graphics of damages etc. but even with that, WT can not do what a game 10-11 years older gets to do. Play WT for two hours and you are totally bored og gettin killed by a rat kid with super ammo pay to win kit. On the other hand, I have been playing for 8 hours non stop WW2OL with its faults and defects.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kase250 Debate me on facts point me why I'm incoherent or where I'm just criticizing ? I never criticized without feedback and constructive criticism.

Some one said they doubt warthunder research I pointed to hard facts why that was a mistake to do so.

 

Contrary to you I don't make personal attacks, if you are not ready to listen to the hard truth or different points of view, a forum might not be a place for you, warthunder has put thousands if not millions in historically researching vehicles, so the smart and cheaper approach is to take advantage of this research for free! like I just did to research the Matilda Armor Values.

CRS is currently making an audit to vehicles .. so sorry BUT I THINK THIS THREAD CAN BE USEFUL FOR CRS, this seems a logical place to start considering it's always been a issue and with another popular thread about the Matilda Invincibility, so if indeed there was a flaw with the Matilda Model CRS could address the current issue raised by players like @kareca

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, pbveteran said:

@kase250 Debate me on facts point me why I'm incoherent or where I'm just criticizing ? I never criticized without feedback and constructive criticism.

Some one said they doubt warthunder research I pointed to hard facts why that was a mistake to do so.

 

Contrary to you I don't make personal attacks, if you not ready to listen to the hard truth a forum is not a place for you, warthunder has put thousands if not millions in historically researching vehicles, so the smart and cheaper approach is to take advantage of this research for free! like I just did to research the Matilda Armor Values.

Sorry, but I did not made any personal attack....... I only give my opinion, like you do.

Yes, I think that you are not coherent, this is not a "personal attack" mate, you demand, (yes you demand, your post is a demand...or a request, maybe I expresed bad im sorry if it is the case....) you criticize (yes you do it and it is not bad....) but you dont make anything to things happen and that is incoherent. You know perfectly how the game state is. If we want the game to improve we need money.

 What I want you to understand is that if we all would do like you, there would be no game. If CRS 2.0 dont be volntary working, would be no game. If we want to improve the game we need money or to simply keep the game alive, we need money. That is the hard true, not the WT ballistics things you speaking about all day.

I can be a FTP player and stay all the day on forums requesting/demanding/critizing and giving feedback, ok, but that, unfortunately does not help and i think it is not coherent. I think it is not coherent to contradict a voluntary game developer . It is an opinion, not a personal attack. if you can not stand different opinions maybe the forums is not for you.

PS: I noted you edited your post. I agree more with you now. Fortunately i quoted your original post.

Edited by kase250

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kase250

" but what I do not understand is if WW2OL is so bad and has so many failures which is the reason why you keep coming to the forums constantly to demand changes and improvements " ...

You just said indirectly that my opinion doesn't matter and that I shouldn't be here.

I bought this game day one when it was released in EU 2005 before releasing I was seeing squad videos on how to bust FBS and place satchels in tanks :lol:, I have been in HC, I subscriber for 2 years and some months in between, I have been in top 10 killers and tankers, I backed on Kickstarter, I bought rapid assault, I study game development in university, I'm programmer and also do some 3d modelling and I'm also a big fan of WW2 Games I played nearly everyone of them.

Did I mention I follow closely the development of WW2ol updates and know a lot of how it works from talking to devs I even knew that you didn't need the creator software to make infantry weapons something that merlin51 didn't even knew which is a volunteer at CRS.

 

Man but truly I don't care about you nor should you care about me only about the game. I believe my feedback is important and more value than most here since of what I mention above, sadly CRS is down to the superfans which for them the game is good, the other people left or the new players are not familiar with the limitations of CRS development and tech. On my 13 years here I have seen many of my feedback had real impact on improving the game, to fixing a impenetrable opel window, to improving how the Panzershreck sight worked before 1.33 release, to helping the guy that document the weirdness of ATG crews when getting hit on the testing server that allowed for devs to finally fix it, to even asking to change the loading screens etc..

 

AFAIK CRS has at least paying 2 devs... since CRS resources are limited why shouldn't I help guide this audit ? and maybe potential save dev time...

Share this post


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

xD how can you compare one guy probably doing volunteer work, with a team of historical researchers from multiple countries, who even found out errors in some technical books about tanks. Plus it's a very popular game you have numerous of people that have contributed to fixing the game with multiple real documents to back up changes.

The problem with warthunder is that the devs will leave things incorrect and then justify them as correct with unreliable and sometimes even fake sources.

 

I never played much of tanks but iirc ammunition was the part that was the most incorrect in warthunder.

 

It's a good baseline but I wouldnt use it as a source.

 

If you want proof then look at how long the N1k2 was incorrect or how long the Maus had incorrect turret thickness.

Share this post


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

@kase250

" but what I do not understand is if WW2OL is so bad and has so many failures which is the reason why you keep coming to the forums constantly to demand changes and improvements " ...

You just said indirectly that my opinion doesn't matter and that I shouldn't be here.

 

No mate, I didnt want to say that. I apologize. I hope you can forgive me. Anyways, i dont thin that it was a personal attack. I insist, if i offended you, i apologize. Take note my first phrase, "with all the respect...." 

You have all the right to be here, of course. But the 90% posts i read is only issues, it is like the people blaming about the governments but never goes to vote.

It would very nice that people like you, passionate about the game etc. with such knowledge you say that you have, to step up and help the rest of the team.  I would do that if i had such knowledment but, unfotunately, my only way to help is to pay a hero sub.

PS: just wanted to add that i demand things to CRS too, but no in the general discussion. I use tje builder forum etc. 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.