1.34.0.38 Sherman 75mm survives 4 hits on rear with PZIVG at less than 20m?

[fxmmauser]

A sherman 75mm can survive 4 hits with 4G at less than 20m direct hit on rear. I shot at 4 spots on rear 1 left and 1 right rear like stu engine and 2 on the center of rear. I got orange smoke and one light grey or white on both left and right.

The sherman was then able to rotate turret 180 and killed my PZ 4G , I also then spawn Shreck shot 2 times rear and nothing...

His gunner was still alive and driver since he started the engine ?!

I then flank and hit sap spot with sherk and he blew up.

Should I had flamed him from 4 hits on rear and at least killed his driver?

Edited October 22, 2011 by fxmmauser

[smythes]

A sherman 75mm can survive 3 hits with 4G at less than 20m direct hit on rear. I shot at 4 spots on rear 1 left and 1 right rear like stu engine and 2 on the center of rear. I got orange smoke and one light grey or white on both left and right.

The sherman was then able to rotate turret 180 and killed my PZ 4G , I also then spawn Shreck shot 2 times rear and nothing...

His gunner was still alive and driver since he started the engine ?!

I then flank and hit sap spot with sherk and he blew up.

Should I had flamed him from 4 hits on rear and at least killed his driver?

My immediate thought about engaging any tank from the rear are you just hitting the engine?

[fxmmauser]

My immediate thought about engaging any tank from the rear are you just hitting the engine?

This is one of those instances that I would like to see a visual post sortie damage model calculations.

This games says it models splatter and shrapnel from rounds, it should have killed the sherman crew in this case.

And even if the round pass through it should had hit the driver.

I think shrapnel and splatter calculations on both sherman are off , a few hours later done a sortie with a tiger tank hit a sherman firefly side and turret multiple of times at less than 300m and no damage at all or kill either, he then turn and kill me

[trev62]

That was me in the Sherm. Your PzVI got the kill by taking out my engine. None of my crew was killed by Pz. shots. The second AT inf killed all crew, almost positive on first shot.

[bronco69]

thats what i told DOC before in PMs

was a PSchreck 10-20m behind a Sherman... 2 rounds into back ... nothing. not even smoke. and i aimed for the flat plate facing me.. not the sloped engine plate on top of it

[smythes]

One word - Merkava.

Perhaps the engine, due to reality of a virtual reality damage model, stops rounds effectively?

[fxmmauser]

That was me in the Sherm. Your PzVI got the kill by taking out my engine. None of my crew was killed by Pz. shots. The second AT inf killed all crew' date=' almost positive on first shot.[/quote']

Before I blowing you up with anti tank inf I heard your engine starting it seems that it was working... Was this the case?

In another sortie with me using sherman 76mm I survived frontal hits less than 200m from tigers to my frontal armor..

[clone9cz]

It is not looking like 0.38 bug

I was spend 8+ HEAT on StugIIIB at rear armor of S75 from 50m 90° year ago, nothing happend.

My experience with RPAT is similar.

[fxmmauser]

It is not looking like 0.38 bug

I was spend 8+ HEAT on StugIIIB at rear armor of S75 from 50m 90° year ago, nothing happen.

My experience with RPAT is similar.

I had always major WTFs with Heat rounds on axis tanks I would like to have a plausible explanation at by fingers tips every time I encounter them.

The damage model probably has so many variables that some could be not working correctly or incomplete compared to others tanks and instead we are just forced to believe it is

On the allied side I had very few troubles with blowing up axis tanks side, rears and turret with somewhat low equipment.

I don't know why the full list of tanks is not available on beta to test all tanks against RPATs.

[jwilly]

I would like to have a plausible explanation at by fingers tips every time I encounter them.

The damage model probably has so many variables that some could be not working correctly or incomplete compared to others tanks and instead we are just forced to believe it is

I don't have a horse in this particular issue-race, but:

Having lots of WTF factor, non-red-blueness and instance to instance variability in a tactical wargame is very realistic, and AFAIK has always been a design intent.

[trev62]

Before I blowing you up with anti tank inf I heard your engine starting it seems that it was working... Was this the case?

In another sortie with me using sherman 76mm I survived frontal hits less than 200m from tigers to my frontal armor..

I was able to start engine but not get it in gear to move.

[DOC]

where is the bug report ? I'm not seeing a bug report here at all ?

perhaps your expecations are that all rear hull impacts should blow up the tank or kill all the crew ?

that's not how it works

a rear hull might blow up a tank, or set it on fire, or kill all or some of the crew

it might also just punch a hole in the armour

or damage the engine, but maybe not enough to stop it completely

none of this will mean incapacitation of the gunner or turret rotation, but it might

rear impact shots have to get past this engine to do damage on the other side of the engine, like the crew comparment for example

fjdXBvpCV-o

after getting past the engine ... a sizable blockade in itself, there is a firewall between the engine compartment and the crew compartment

again, not seeing a bug here, just your expectations not aligning themselves with what is happening, perhaps because you're not sure how it is supposed to work ?

[fxmmauser]

where is the bug report ? I'm not seeing a bug report here at all ?

...

how it is supposed to work ?

How big is the tiger engine shouldn't it stop the round too? And the other panzers and tank engines no other stop has the sherman engine?

We are talking about a 75mm high velocity gun at less than 20m directly aiming at almost 0º slope armor at the rear shooting 4 armor piercing rounds and more 2 Panzershrek rounds.

Is the damage model engine the actual size and shape of the real sherman engine? or just a box?

Is it made just by one type of material or does it have plastics and different alloys?

Is there a gap between the engine and rear armor deforming the projectile when it penetrates the armor?

Does the engine occupy all the rear part of the model sherman or is there room for a round to penetrate the armor and avoid the engine?

Does the round that hit & penetrate, left a hole and decreased the engine armor making a second hit penetrate even more if it hits the same place?

When allied I had absolutely 100% success blowing and flaming all axis tanks by shooting at rear with stuart tank(ap round) even at greater distances I don't think this is unrealistic I think the sherman rear is unrealistic.

Yes I do not know how it is suppose to work I did not developed this game or know all the calculations the engine does. I never even driven or been inside a sherman tank I know that a US frontline repairman on d-day said that from all sherman tanks 50% sustain critical damage and crew casualties.

How thick is that fire compartment ? Maybe this info should be ingame?

I really can't imagine an engine to be in a repairable state after 4 direct 75mm hits at 20m and 2 panzershrek rounds maybe if the engine was made of iridium or tungsten maybe it would be easier to process.

In line with the rest of the tank game maybe consider dropping this realism feature make it more user friendly most common players ingame and that come from other games have a notion than rear equals weak part of the tank and will probably try to go after it.

(this sherman rear thing happens to every new player seen probably a dozen complain about the same ingame but also in this very same forum)

Best Regards

FXM

[GOPHUR]

In line with the rest of the tank game maybe consider dropping this realism feature make it more user friendly most common players ingame and that come from other games have a notion than rear equals weak part of the tank and will probably try to go after it.

(this sherman rear thing happens to every new player seen probably a dozen complain about the same ingame but also in this very same forum)

It's funny how times change and gamers expectations evolve.

Back in the day hardcore gamers liked the "fog of war". Making such a statement as above3 would have gotten you laughed off the orange boards so quick you wouldn't be able to find your way back to DOOM.

But times change, as they should.

I can;t agree with the above suggestion but I think the sentiment is correct. You're questioning the validity of the model based on your experiences from other games and most importantly from a lack of feedback. In the old days that feedback would have been resented by the guys who based their experience on a deeper understanding of real world data and research, or thought they did anywway.

I'm in both camps to some degree, I don't think lifting the skirt completely is a great idea but it's better than having some fantasy hit bubble model. FHBM are much easier to set expectations on and the only bridge to that gap is feedback. So the grognard loses in this case because there needs to be that feedback. We're no longer in a hardcore gaming environment. And while we'll always lean to and crave that environment there are some areas where we simply have to better meet expectations. When we can do that (feedback) without compromising our hard core values (damage model) then we win.

Oh Sorry here's the answer to your question:

BTW on my first test I got an immediate fuel fire that killed everyone, instantly. Second one got him smoking but no crew damages. looking at the damge log none of the shrapnel made it through to the crew, which is about right.

[clone9cz]

FHBM ?

[ohanselo]

It's funny how times change and gamers expectations evolve.

I agree, but DOC he does have a point with the tiger reference. If a Sherman can be modeled that precisely why cant a tiger?

[fxmmauser]

But times change, as they should.

I'm in both camps to some degree, I don't think lifting the skirt completely is a great idea but it's better than having some fantasy hit bubble model. FHBM are much easier to set expectations on and the only bridge to that gap is feedback. So the grognard loses in this case because there needs to be that feedback. We're no longer in a hardcore gaming environment. And while we'll always lean to and crave that environment there are some areas where we simply have to better meet expectations. When we can do that (feedback) without compromising our hard core values (damage model) then we win.

BTW on my first test I got an immediate fuel fire that killed everyone, instantly. Second one got him smoking but no crew damages. looking at the damge log none of the shrapnel made it through to the crew, which is about right.

But my question is more would 100 75mm rounds in the same place where crew is located but has to go through rear armor, engine and fire compartment so it can kill crew into a sherman engine would it eventually penetrate killing the crew?

The reason for me to state that a X number would blow a tank is because in real life there is armor decay multiple hits would start melting the armor , the bolts with that continuous amount of energy would begin to fall apart the integrity of the tank would fall, eventually X energy from X rounds would always equal the same outcome, if 5 rounds in the same place would 90% kill the tank 10 would always kill it.

Bubble Hit & instant kill is what I believe would fix the inefficiency of HE rounds against infantry on BGE without having to add hundreds of shrapnel I'm still not able to kill infantry by shooting at 1-3meters away from him.

(A 75mm HE or 88mm in a 3m radius at least with the number of shrapnel from both the shell and the terrain itself plus the concussion and the explosive blast would always kill the enemy infantry no calculation is necessary here)

I'm for hardcore gameplay as long the game has the ingame support for new players to understand without the necessity to request support from human players.

Yes everyone knows the game needs visual feedback but CRS seem to have also a deeper feedback system already developed that makes me produce an unusual amount of saliva, Amazing picture btw! would love to have that option post sortie. That would really help reduce the learning curve for new players.

[DOC]

this is a forum for bug reporting not design discussion

PS: the Tiger is modeled with the same approach to accuracy as the Sherman is, we don't pick and choose what gets the good work and what gets nefed because we did't care to give it the same amount of attention, we certainly didn't just decide that the Sherman was more important to model correctly than the Tiger was. If you have a BUG to report with the Tiger then do so and we'll look at it. If you just don't like the way it is modeled that is something else. It's not abug per se.

[GOPHUR]

FHBM ?

Fantasy Hit Bubble Model.

[GOPHUR]

But my question is more would 100 75mm rounds in the same place where crew is located but has to go through rear armor, engine and fire compartment so it can kill crew into a sherman engine would it eventually penetrate killing the crew?

No. Armor thickness and thus penetration is not degraded with hits. Components (internal) have 3 things. A "thickness" value that determines which rounds (kinetic) will pass through and how many joules they'll dump into the component. A minimum threshold where any damage less than this is ignored and then damage levels which are in stages based on joules accumulated. These stages can affect the performance of the component or they might bleed damage into another component, say fuel or ammo or crew.

[fxmmauser]

No. Armor thickness and thus penetration is not degraded with hits. Components (internal) have 3 things. A "thickness" value that determines which rounds (kinetic) will pass through and how many joules they'll dump into the component. A minimum threshold where any damage less than this is ignored and then damage levels which are in stages based on joules accumulated. These stages can affect the performance of the component or they might bleed damage into another component' date=' say fuel or ammo or crew.[/quote']

For me that's the only large hole on your formula and in some occasions it makes the game look very unrealistic.

BTW about the sherman you did not hit where I hit:

-1st I was actually closer probably 5m in a way that the rear bottom was difficult to hit and looked if it would bounced or pass until it hit the ground.

-2nd I was directly align with the sherman exactly at its 6.

-3rd I hit the zone painted with blue as seen on picture

I tested this on beta again today center spot only white smoke but on the far right(my tank right) near the border of tank hitting from slight above I could flame it but that is not very intuitive since on that area seems to be fully occupy by the thickness of the armor.

Edited October 31, 2011 by fxmmauser

[DOC]

at some point however you accept that a complete redesign of how the game engine works because you don't like how one part of it seems to operate, is not going to happen

this is why we explain how it does work, so you can understand the reasoning

we are not building a new game engine just at this time, so where it isn't quite ideal but is acting as it was designed, is just the way it is and understanding it might make what isn't ideal easierto live with while we are foced to accept it

in some small way what Gophurs and my explanations are trying to do is tell you that you aren't pointing out a bug we can fix but rather a functionality that is working correctly even though not ideally from your point of view

(it's probably not ideal from our point of view either but we know why it's not changing right now)

you can discuss this further as you wish but since we're on the big bug hunt in this forum and this isn't a bug, we probably won't be stopping by to do the back and forth on this topic/thread, I just wanted you to get why that is so you wouldn't misinterpret it