pbveteran

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

57 posts in this topic

On 10/19/2018 at 10:48 AM, stankyus said:

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

Scotsman did the data for ALL the ammo currently in use.
Page 119, but read the whole thing, not the be all end all, but very good, and it is free to read the online copy

It's fairly good for being easily available

On 10/18/2018 at 8:26 AM, pbveteran said:

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 

Why does WT have PzGr34 (t) in a german PZ38(t)?, that is a downgrade that would probably not have happened by choice of the real Axis
Our game does not use it either, that's for like a 34 L/40, our pz38(t) doesn't shoot that.

Matilda mk II Armor (roughly)
Lower Hull Nose    78
Upper Hull Nose    47
Hull Front    75
Hull Sides Lower 25 + 40
Hull Sides Upper 70
Hull Rear 55
Hull Roof (Front) 20
Engine Deck    20
Hull Floor (Front half)    20
Hull Floor (Rear half) 13
Turret Front 75
Turret Roof    20
Turret Sides 75
Turret Rear    75

The games model is actually reflecting that pretty well, it actually isn't bad given the time period it was created in.
Not going to say Hey it's perfect or anything, none of them are, but if it was rebuilt today, i think the difference one would notice in game when sitting there shooting it would be very marginal in that aspect, though it may look a bit prettier.

3 hours ago, pbveteran said:

Doesn't the tiger have now an unrealistic turret turn ratio ?

No, the tiger is capable of traversing faster than it does in game with the engine running at 2500 rpms
it is also capable of traversing magnitudes slower with no engine, on full manual traverse (so slow you could not even use it)
In game it moves at a speed that is a compromise between the two since presently there isn't a function to tie it to engine speed
nor a way to dictate the engine from the turret.
So the tiger rotates faster than possible with no engine, but slower than possible with the engine at 2500 rpms

The matilda also does not rotate at speed without its donkey engine running to power it, but in game it has no donkey engine running.
it gets free electric

French tanks also need the engine running for the dynamo to run for the electric traverse, for those that have it.

3 hours ago, pbveteran said:

The doesn't even say with shells you have in your tank just AP or HE or APHE

No, you are correct.
The ammo feedback interface is common for all the guns
and the ammo categories are also commonized
So solid shot, APCBC and APCR and HVAP all show up as simply AP
If it has an HE component, but is not a general HE round, it simply shows up as APHE even if it is APHEC
HEAT simply says HEAT

It would be kind of neat if it said something more like
M61 APCBC-HE or
PzGr40 APCR

The rounds themselves are there, they are different, but the labels themselves are just 4 types AP HE APHE HEAT
I guess when originally done, the original team probably figured that would be less confusing for the mass majority as not every gamer would know what he just loaded if the screen read
37L45 PzGr39
37L45 PzGr40
37K45 SpGr Patr 38
37L45 Gr Patr 38
I think it would be cool though, if the UI could fit it, you would just need to learn your ammo types and know what those meant

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, viper69 said:

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.

You have to make the best of your situation. That may be backing off and ignoring it. Those kind of skills come with experience and a lot of deaths and can't be taught. 

I'm still learning from every engagement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Merlin51 said:

 

I think it would be cool though, if the UI could fit it, you would just need to learn your ammo types and know what those meant

 

It just would be wonderful. And more realist too. 

Share this post


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

It just would be wonderful. And more realist too. 

poor photoshop but something like this would be kind of cool.
(yes i just now realize i didnt edit COAX, lol)

zClUDyP.png

Sfvs3hB.png

H6W6vM3.png

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

poor photoshop but something like this would be kind of cool.
(yes i just now realize i didnt edit COAX, lol)

zClUDyP.png

Sfvs3hB.png

H6W6vM3.png

Yeah! I like it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transparency is the underlying KEYWORD here - in WT you can look at stuff, share it, check it, balk at DEVs to fix it if wrong

HERE, for the last 15 years - you mention something may be "off", maybe...you get responses, through the bank and quite consistently, like:

"You're assuming based on your perceptions because your imagination is running rampant and wild, inexplicably based on falsehoods yet determined by perceived results on the grounds of myths clouding your judgement - also "Risk of War". Remember, this is "Rocket Science"(c)TM and you're wrong! *idiot*..."

 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

Scotsman did the data for ALL the ammo currently in use.
Page 119, but read the whole thing, not the be all end all, but very good, and it is free to read the online copy

It's fairly good for being easily available

Our game does not use it either, that's for like a 34 L/40, our pz38(t) doesn't shoot that.

Matilda mk II Armor (roughly)
Lower Hull Nose    78
Upper Hull Nose    47
Hull Front    75
Hull Sides Lower 25 + 40
Hull Sides Upper 70
Hull Rear 55
Hull Roof (Front) 20
Engine Deck    20
Hull Floor (Front half)    20
Hull Floor (Rear half) 13
Turret Front 75
Turret Roof    20
Turret Sides 75
Turret Rear    75

The games model is actually reflecting that pretty well, it actually isn't bad given the time period it was created in.
Not going to say Hey it's perfect or anything, none of them are, but if it was rebuilt today, i think the difference one would notice in game when sitting there shooting it would be very marginal in that aspect, though it may look a bit prettier.

No, you are correct.
The ammo feedback interface is common for all the guns
and the ammo categories are also commonized
So solid shot, APCBC and APCR and HVAP all show up as simply AP
If it has an HE component, but is not a general HE round, it simply shows up as APHE even if it is APHEC
HEAT simply says HEAT

It would be kind of neat if it said something more like
M61 APCBC-HE or
PzGr40 APCR

The rounds themselves are there, they are different, but the labels themselves are just 4 types AP HE APHE HEAT
I guess when originally done, the original team probably figured that would be less confusing for the mass majority as not every gamer would know what he just loaded if the screen read
37L45 PzGr39
37L45 PzGr40
37K45 SpGr Patr 38
37L45 Gr Patr 38
I think it would be cool though, if the UI could fit it, you would just need to learn your ammo types and know what those meant

 

So I was partially WRONG on the Matilda Front down hull armor.

I have dove more into the actual Matilda Tank and the armor I highlight are armored storage bins, the actual hull down front armor seems to make a "V" behind them so it's impossible to penetrate with the 38(t) even using the umg ammo.

Warthunder has actual implemented a feature that makes it even more transparent, you can now select an ammunition, range and see if it would penetrate the tank.

I have checked this and overall the invincibility of the Matilda Is warrant at least to above 100m.

 

When you actual go into the 38(t) ammunition at under 100m at near 0º

- the 38(t) should penetrate and kill the Matilda on driver slit, on the turret ring and front plate and turret sides, in this places the effective thickness is 71mm while the 38(t) Penetrates 68mm, so there is a low chance for the round to penetrate and provoke damage to the crew.

WW2OL Devs said in the past that there is a 5% up and down penetration capability with the ammunition, to model bad/good armor production and rounds, that leaves with a total of 71,4 mm penetration capability.

 

- So the problem rests more on the 38(t) Ammunition, it's shell should be able to penetrate 68mm up to 71,4mm at under 100m near 0º.

- Going to the engine shooting on the rear near the right or left side should disable the engine and provoke a fuel fire which ingame I don't think it does.

 

I don't think WW2ol allows turret ring penetrations so the Matilda can't be killed through this.

Edited by pbveteran

Share this post


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

Warthunder has actual implemented a feature that makes it even more transparent, you can now select an ammunition, range and see if it would penetrate the tank.

Yea, that some other features are kind of neat, but unrealistic at the same time.
But WT is a different kind of game, so it's fine for it

The game (this game) Could literally tell you

"Dude your PzGr just hit the upper hull side armor at 750 m/s, It penetrated 61mm, it generated 3 chunks of spall, unfortunately 2 hit the engine block and did not have the energy to actually hurt it, and 1 hit the radiator so this guy it going to be around for a while until he overheats but he is still going to shoot at us"

But a real guy in a real tank does not really get that kind of feed back, unless the thing brews up or something.
He also does not usually get the luxury of intricately studying the other guys machines and shooting them while having an x-ray view of the firing solution (yes, our game can actually do that as well)
The game tries to make it more of a learning through battlefield experience and learning from others thing.

 

7 hours ago, pbveteran said:

Going to the engine shooting on the rear near the right or left side should disable the engine and provoke a fuel fire which ingame I don't think it does.

It can, that is where people get close range kills on them.
I miss some of the old damage effects/events though, i think some of them gave better feed back even if it did sometimes result and watching a flaming tank
driving around.

And yea, the front of the matty isn't too bad a design, the small thinner nose plate is at such an angle that hitting it puts the round right smack into the heavier
hull front plate.
 

7 hours ago, pbveteran said:

I don't think WW2ol allows turret ring penetrations so the Matilda can't be killed through this.

You can shoot through it, though i can not say how effective the 38t may or may not be at it (or how effective my aiming it is, i'd have better luck just hitting the gun)
What you can not currently do is hit the ring gap, and wedge the rounds into it, jamming the turret, busting the ring or lifting the turret.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:00 AM, 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

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..

Because researchers look for other ppls work on unclassified information.  Scotsman had the classified information and access to just about any item he wanted at this fingertips.  He was somewhat of a researcher on the subject, but he was involved in the development on KE munitions and postmortem inspection of armor damage for 35 years (?) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, stankyus said:

Because researchers look for other ppls work on unclassified information.  Scotsman had the classified information and access to just about any item he wanted at this fingertips.  He was somewhat of a researcher on the subject, but he was involved in the development on KE munitions and postmortem inspection of armor damage for 35 years (?) 

...and all the other dudes writing stuff, cross referencing & quoting released, formerly classified, data are lying, got it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

Yea, that some other features are kind of neat, but unrealistic at the same time.
But WT is a different kind of game, so it's fine for it

The game (this game) Could literally tell you

"Dude your PzGr just hit the upper hull side armor at 750 m/s, It penetrated 61mm, it generated 3 chunks of spall, unfortunately 2 hit the engine block and did not have the energy to actually hurt it, and 1 hit the radiator so this guy it going to be around for a while until he overheats but he is still going to shoot at us"

......etcetcblabla

Youre mssing the point...TRANSPARENCY is the issue here in this game - that being said WT shows you exactly what happened, with greater accuracy as this game due to the ancient engine and MORE than this here can do - Dago3 is king w regards to ballistics/physics atm - IF they really wanted to, they COULD come up w WW2OL V2.0 within 3 months and destroy this here

 

Everything you just said "PzGr hit, created 223 spall, hit this and that" WT does as well - stop trumpeting the old propaganda slogans from 2001 - its 2018 and its nothing spoecial anymore, in fact its olde news and, in this case here, outdated...

 

..and w regards to "unrealistic" - HERE we get 5 CREW in a tank - every DISADVANTAGE of having one of them getting his french tips ripped off we have - ie "Driver hit"..tank no move anymore - "Gunner hit"...tank no fire anymore...BUT - ANY ADVANTAGE of actually HAVING 5 Crew ie "Commander telling driver to move left" - we DONT have !

There, argue that...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, stankyus said:

Scotsman had the classified information and access to just about any item he wanted at this fingertips.  He was somewhat of a researcher on the subject, but he was involved in the development on KE munitions and postmortem inspection of armor damage for 35 years (?) 

Scotsman was employed for many years by a major US defense contractor as a program manager for ordnance development, including state of the art anti-armor. He had ready access to the best professional-level libraries, not of popular interpretations of the original source materials, but those source materials themselves. He knows everything there is to be known about modern and historical battlefield ordnance. He knows the major armor-museum directors, and was able to get questions answered not by researching some secondary source that might or might not be accurate, but by having the needed information checked directly. His primary limitation while he was helping CRS was keeping careful track of what he knew that was classified, vs. what he knew that he legally could discuss here and utilize in game development.

I don't know anything about Dago3...what are his credentials?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When was the last time CRS measure real life armor thickness 

A group of CRS researchers got armor-thickness and internal-dimension data from museum units for French-tank modeling, back in the first couple of years. 

A community member went so far as to buy a Brandt 50mm HEAT RG in order to get data for modeling.

Edited by jwilly
1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Because researchers look for other ppls work on unclassified information.  Scotsman had the classified information and access to just about any item he wanted at this fingertips.  He was somewhat of a researcher on the subject, but he was involved in the development on KE munitions and postmortem inspection of armor damage for 35 years (?) 

So what you're saying is that Scotsman had access to exactly the same data that all of those other researchers you just mentioned had as well for the purposes of developing WWIIOL.  That is to say, all of the unclassified material available on the subject. The same as everyone else.  If there were other classified sources used (which I highly doubt), he and I would theoretically be having a very uncomfortable face to face conversation about that issue.

Share this post


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

...and all the other dudes writing stuff, cross referencing & quoting released, formerly classified, data are lying, got it...

LOL - you know this kind of dishonest discourse makes having a discussion difficult and more agenda driven.

I simply stated that I trust Scotsman information on armor and ammo than I do with somebody I don't know to be more specific. I have known and spoken with Scotsman in an out of the game for years. He is a most fascinating person and the things he has been involved with ppl like us would dream out.  His ability to gather information that his knowledge base.. IE not a game research guy for a game but actually understand the math and why things do what they do on impact.. not just a information hound, but understanding the science behind it.  That's a pretty powerful thing. That being said, its not to dis what other guys have done in the arena of armor and ammo research.

Secondly, and this is where the dishonesty in your statement lies.. you imply that I said they are lying about it.  No where did I ever state they are lying about what they know. Logic should tell you that IF this game has the wrong information, then is it not possible that warthunder might be in error?  There is a big difference between lying and being in error.  I would like you to lay the claim then by your logic that CRS is lying about the Matty.  My discussions with Scotsman he has stated they found issues with some of the armor in the game, specifically problems with the BEF Churchills and DDs in the game. The Churchills have issues that allow them to die to things they shouldn't - the DD has wrong hull armor values that make them harder to kill.

Share this post


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

So what you're saying is that Scotsman had access to exactly the same data that all of those other researchers you just mentioned had as well for the purposes of developing WWIIOL.  That is to say, all of the unclassified material available on the subject. The same as everyone else.  If there were other classified sources used (which I highly doubt), he and I would theoretically be having a very uncomfortable face to face conversation about that issue.

NO he had CLASSIFIED data he was able to work around as not to breach the classified information. If you have read his posts on the subject, you would understand that as he stated it many times in the past right here in the forums.  That data dealt with projectile information mostly.  He was using source material, not using data used by some guy that researched the material themselves and I think Scotsman had given props to some guys on some material, like great on US weapons data but horrible on German data, even warned against using that data.

Would it help you all if I said that Scotsman was a dedicated Axis player? Somehow I feel the resistance to what I have said is being viewed through the lense of side bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, stankyus said:

NO he had CLASSIFIED data he was able to work around as not to breach the classified information.

This statement, if true, is broaching a potential problem.  I seriously hope Scotsman never gave you any indication that this is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, minky said:

This statement, if true, is broaching a potential problem.  I seriously hope Scotsman never gave you any indication that this is the case.

::facepalm:: lol seriously? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@stankyus

No one said anything bad about scotsman and his work! simply that no matter what a company that can pay multiple people to research and travel to real museums and collect real data from multiple locations have access to translators and historical researches from multiple countries, plus have hardcore fans that also know and have access to historical data will simply out produce and in theory have more accurated information.

It's like comparing Finland military with the USA Military ...

22 hours ago, Merlin51 said:


The game (this game) Could literally tell you

"Dude your PzGr just hit the upper hull side armor at 750 m/s, It penetrated 61mm, it generated 3 chunks of spall, unfortunately 2 hit the engine block and did not have the energy to actually hurt it, and 1 hit the radiator so this guy it going to be around for a while until he overheats but he is still going to shoot at us"

But a real guy in a real tank does not really get that kind of feed back, unless the thing brews up or something.
He also does not usually get the luxury of intricately studying the other guys machines and shooting them while having an x-ray view of the firing solution (yes, our game can actually do that as well)
The game tries to make it more of a learning through battlefield experience and learning from others thing.

 

It can, that is where people get close range kills on them.
I miss some of the old damage effects/events though, i think some of them gave better feed back even if it did sometimes result and watching a flaming tank
driving around.

You can shoot through it, though i can not say how effective the 38t may or may not be at it (or how effective my aiming it is, i'd have better luck just hitting the gun)
What you can not currently do is hit the ring gap, and wedge the rounds into it, jamming the turret, busting the ring or lifting the turret.
 

I never ask or want real life accurate feedback like that.. What I want is before spawning or selecting a vehicle you could see the armor thickness and components of vehicles.

Share this post


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

@stankyus

No one said anything bad about scotsman and his work! simply that no matter what a company that can pay multiple people to research and travel to real museums and collect real data from multiple locations have access to translators and historical researches from multiple countries, plus have hardcore fans that also know and have access to historical data will simply out produce and in theory have more accurated information.

It's like comparing Finland military with the USA Military ...

I never ask or want real life accurate feedback like that.. What I want is before spawning or selecting a vehicle you could see the armor thickness and components of vehicles.

Well, the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded in mid air because many ppl decided to lift over a few decenters. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, minky said:

Please check your PMs.

I did, and you are looking for a issue that is not there.. check your pm.

If you want to understand better, go back and look at the blast pattern post he had. He used known generic public data,. So the butterfly pattern was what he proposed for HE rounds as they represented typical HE impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I did, and you are looking for a issue that is not there.. check your pm.

If you want to understand better, go back and look at the blast pattern post he had. He used known generic public data,. So the butterfly pattern was what he proposed for HE rounds as they represented typical HE impact.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Only publicly available unclassified information was used in the development of WWIIOL. 

Share this post


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

LOL - you know this kind of dishonest discourse makes having a discussion difficult and more agenda driven.

....

Secondly, and this is where the dishonesty in your statement lies.. you imply that I said they are lying about it.  No where did I ever state they are lying about what they know. Logic should tell you that IF this game has the wrong information, then is it not possible that warthunder might be in error?  There is a big difference between lying and being in error.  I would like you to lay the claim then by your logic that CRS is lying about the Matty.  My discussions with Scotsman he has stated they found issues with some of the armor in the game, specifically problems with the BEF Churchills and DDs in the game. The Churchills have issues that allow them to die to things they shouldn't - the DD has wrong hull armor values that make them harder to kill.

No "dishonesty" there - merely rephrasing your argument to be more precise as in "Scotsman knows, everyone else does not and is therefore lying" which is what you basically said...

Maybe you should goggle WT a bit more and check YT as well w regards to "this here is only game we have had a "scotsman" look at stuff"...

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

No "dishonesty" there - merely rephrasing your argument to be more precise as in "Scotsman knows, everyone else does not and is therefore lying" which is what you basically said...

Maybe you should goggle WT a bit more and check YT as well w regards to "this here is only game we have had a "scotsman" look at stuff"...

You don't speak for me. What part of that you don't get.. I did not say anything of the sort.. so now you have it from the horses mouth.

Now put your theory to the test.. Say right here on the forums that CRS is lying about the Matty.  That's your logic.. use it equitably or you are just being hypocritical and agenda driven.

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.