kgarner

Current supply lists in beta..... 1.36

155 posts in this topic

someone post a video of killing the matilda with the 4D or 3B

would especially like to see the easy shot goreblimey mentioned, if for nothing else for everyone to see what the arc looks like on a 1000m shot with the short-barreled 75mm lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been knocked out at 1200m with a Matty from a StuGb heat round during "The March of the Matildas" in Orval. 

 

Must have landed right on the deck near the sap spot in both mine and goreblimey's cases.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on board with reducing both overall armor numbers and Matty in particular. I think 3+2 CS would be reasonable.

Part of my willingness to be gracious here despite that I am certainly an Allied partisan is that in resupply days, if you wanted a Matty, or if you lost a Matty, you'd drive it from backline. You whippersnappers need to do the same!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh right, and per the actual point of the thread, I too wouldn't mind a reduction in armor supply.  

 

I don't think we need any more inf though.  The garrison sizes seem to be working well.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think INF numbers are solid as well. We just need to trim armored numbers across the board.

And decrease the number of tanks that nobody enjoys playing with or uses. No reason to have more than a handful of R35 or Vickers in the spawn lists. Replace them with A13s and H39s.

Share this post


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

4d firing at a Matilda , front on 1000m from a slight elevation . surprised me how it got an engine smoking but hey , didnt try to repeat it tho. i'll assume its repeatable. 

At a 1000 meters with slight elevation possible with a Heat round , the arc of the round would most likely make it land on the rear deck or top structure of the ET . And top armament was usually thinner anyways. 

My method at that range is go for the track and let ya sit out there.  Doesn't always work but better then having one roll into town.

 

 

To the numbers 

Can't say yet, I'm still trying to get my head around this Garrison thing, in my opinion made it more complicated for new players to find where to go . 

I liked the old way , just needed to incorporate the supply thingy without having to change all the other stuff .

A Garrison sounds so Wild West like next thing will be we have Forts we spawn out of .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GARRISONS: all sides should have many light / medium tanks in great numbers ... like 3f / 38 (t) ... A13 ... H39 / R35. just a few of the heavy ones. would love to see more tank combat of that kind. all those tanks i mentioned are pretty balanced and guarantee a good shootout.

DIVISIONS: all sides should have more medium and heavy tanks in those flags. this would guarantee that flags still stay a severe threat on the map and big pushes can mostly be done only with divisions support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dre21 said:

At a 1000 meters with slight elevation possible with a Heat round , the arc of the round would most likely make it land on the rear deck or top structure of the ET . And top armament was usually thinner anyways. 

My method at that range is go for the track and let ya sit out there.  Doesn't always work but better then having one roll into town.

 

 

To the numbers 

Can't say yet, I'm still trying to get my head around this Garrison thing, in my opinion made it more complicated for new players to find where to go . 

I liked the old way , just needed to incorporate the supply thingy without having to change all the other stuff .

A Garrison sounds so Wild West like next thing will be we have Forts we spawn out of .

this fact would mean that shermans should be an easy pick because of their sloped armor at medium/long distance. specially to 75mm PaK and IV G ... but they arent.

"falling" shells coming down in an arc ... would impact the front hull almost in perfect 90° angle 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, undercova said:

this fact would mean that shermans should be an easy pick because of their sloped armor at medium/long distance. specially to 75mm PaK and IV G ... but they arent.

"falling" shells coming down in an arc ... would impact the front hull almost in perfect 90° angle 

That's not true.  Yes it is true that a shell arcs and 'improves' it's impact angle, but that depends VERY much on relative velocity of the shell AND the distance being fired at.

 

I'm very familiar with the principle, using slow but high arcing French baby tank guns to initiate plunging fire on panzer decks.  Any naval wargamer knows this too, as did the navy gun ship designers that would consider very carefully the mix of opponents and what ranges they could maximize invulnerability vs. tonnage/volume costs to do so.

 

The Sherman angles would require quite the distance to ensure a 90-degree impact.  I would tend to 'help' that sort of result by getting altitude on the Shermans while presenting a greater slope to them.

 

Share this post


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

I think INF numbers are solid as well. We just need to trim armored numbers across the board.

And decrease the number of tanks that nobody enjoys playing with or uses. No reason to have more than a handful of R35 or Vickers in the spawn lists. Replace them with A13s and H39s.

IMO that depends on ranking, and nowadays any DLCs that require them in stock.  First came up with HC RDP choices, of course CinCs cycled out the icky stuff as fast as possible but that left new players with nothing to spawn until the rank slide thing for later tiers kicked in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, goreblimey said:

4d firing at a Matilda , front on 1000m from a slight elevation . surprised me how it got an engine smoking but hey , didnt try to repeat it tho. i'll assume its repeatable. 

HEAT round has same penetration at whatever range, combination of things to determine effective angle.  Probably dropped on your engine deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, the Allied tank lists are way too powerful both in the heavies and with the S35s, even if the Chars were less thats a lot of medium tank for the few IVDs and IIIFs to bear.

Got a bad feeling this is more of that historical cost skewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

glad to see we have a united front across sides...... sincerely hope we do not have another repeat of the historical spawnlist fiasco 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, kgarner said:

glad to see we have a united front across sides...... sincerely hope we do not have another repeat of the historical spawnlist fiasco 

Alea iacta est !

too late ! :D

Share this post


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

HEAT round has same penetration at whatever range, combination of things to determine effective angle.  Probably dropped on your engine deck.

something wrong with this entire theory.......

 

Check ur physics , i believe that shot would have to be fired at about 2 degrees upward to land on the mattie. That angle is so oblique the round should just bounce of the deck.

 

Time to remove the axis fantasy HEAT round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where were u lot when we had a massive Tiger inbalance for how long.....very quiet it seems.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, goreblimey said:

something wrong with this entire theory.......

 

Check ur physics , i believe that shot would have to be fired at about 2 degrees upward to land on the mattie. That angle is so oblique the round should just bounce of the deck.

 

Time to remove the axis fantasy HEAT round.

@undercova @killemall youve a cartoon impression of whats happening with "plunging" fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

something wrong with this entire theory.......

 

Check ur physics , i believe that shot would have to be fired at about 2 degrees upward to land on the mattie. That angle is so oblique the round should just bounce of the deck.

 

Time to remove the axis fantasy HEAT round.

I believe HEAT rounds drop faster and so would have a higher arc, a lot of this depends on distance and relative altitude.

 

What distance, relative bearing to the facing of your tank, and relative heights were you at?

 

V6eck.jpg

 

10mm up top, so being fired down upon, could happen.  Other likely way is a side shot, but that would have to be pretty close to not get deflected, or he fired on you a little lower then your alt.

 

 

 

Edited by Kilemall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

@undercova @killemall youve a cartoon impression of whats happening with "plunging" fire

Not really, again a long time naval wargamer and it's kind of hard to fight big gun ships without being clear on plunging on deck vs. side belt armor and the relative advantaged zones a particular design against a specific gun has, and what maneuvering you have to do to defeat that armor.

Tank armor of course is arranged differently then warship armor, but they are in two different maneuver and impact and fire control regimes.  In both cases however there is careful attention paid to the most probable threats, while weak and vulnerable areas are left in place to save weight, allow for the suspension to do its work and not buckle, and to make it as difficult and improbable to give up the hit as possible and still economically build and operate.

 

Now what may make the HEAT round fantasy is less what the jet can do, and more whether the round would detonate at odd angles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry not buying it. Its a fantasy. I dont believe angle of attack and the round deflecting is being considered. Unless a CRS programmer says definitively that it is.

 

Even taking it down to 200m/s (doesnt look that slow to me) angle would still be 7 degrees.

Edited by goreblimey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

Sorry not buying it. Its a fantasy. I dont believe angle of attack and the round deflecting is being considered. Unless a CRS programmer says definitively that it is.

Well hopefully one will wander by.

 

In the meantime both my squad leader and I went IIIF hunting in R35s, normally a suicidal action, but we would haul off and fire at maximum range, precisely to plunge down on the IIIF armor deck.  Didn't happen often as few IIIFs would be so obliging as to maintain range, but both he and I got one each.  This was early days, so don't know about the current game, but the principle should still work.

 

While we are talking ballistic physics, might as well mention I spend a goodly amount of time lining up shots with ammo bins opposite my impact point.  Even if I don't penetrate, the idea is to spall the bins into detonation.  I think a lot of the squawking about "this shouldn't penetrate that" is about spalling crew/ammo/fuel kills, the rounds really don't penetrate yet they kill.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

Sorry not buying it. Its a fantasy. I dont believe angle of attack and the round deflecting is being considered. Unless a CRS programmer says definitively that it is.

 

Even taking it down to 200m/s (doesnt look that slow to me) angle would still be 7 degrees.

Again.  Distance, relative bearing, relative heights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again ! what angle of attack do u propose that an early HEAT round will successfully detonate or not deflect.

READ those things were stated.

Edited by goreblimey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys this thread is about the supply lists.  

Can you guys create a new thread to discuss the HEAT round?

Cheers!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Again ! what angle of attack do u propose that an early HEAT round will successfully detonate or not deflect.

READ those things were stated.

 

In general I would expect the HEAT round to have a narrower cone of effectiveness then any regular AP+ penetration.  But even at 30 degrees off I would expect that earliest 53mm jet could penetrate 10mm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_37

Don't know the detonator angle range specifically, but given the troubles in getting bazookas and panzershreks to fuse, I have to think it was dicey to expect them to go off outside 25 degrees.  That's definitely a Scotsman question, I know Stanky got into all that as well.

Now on a Matty the only frontal part that could get hurt by the HEAT is that sloped bit 47mm bit, or the 20mm flat part on top of the turret.  It would have to be an ammo bin cookoff to get back to the engine, unlikely but I suppose possible.  If it was truly an engine hit, more likely the shell hit behind the turret on the engine deck.

 

Good series climbing around one, looks to me like the sweet spot is that set of fuel tanks next to the engines, ammo bins not exactly easy pickings.

 

7 hours ago, krazydog said:

Guys this thread is about the supply lists.  

Can you guys create a new thread to discuss the HEAT round?

Cheers!

Hmm, Matty effectiveness and HEAT counter is relevant to spawnlist relative strength discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.