Tank supply imbalance

[tater]

1 hour ago, delems said:

I see 5 French towns now --- out of 30......

Center towns suddenly going USA,  Bast, Wiltz.

If this is a bad thing for the Germans, why?

Is it because the French gear sucks, and it's easier to face them?

[delems]

If numbers are all that matter.

Then why be the girlys and accept the 3 to 1 and 2 to 1 handicap in first line tanks?
 

Maybe man up -- take us on 1 to 1?

Edited May 28, 2021 by delems

[delems]

*** Is it because the French gear sucks, and it's easier to face them?

No, it's because allies know the French are 1 to 1;

While USA and Brit give them a huge handicap in gear --- girly tees as they say in golf.

So, they always make towns the girl tees.

Edited May 28, 2021 by delems

[goreblimey]

3 hours ago, kazee said:

The complaints here is also that 40% of the shermans are s76s. 30 total shermans for usa and 12 are s76s equals 40%

I don't know much about production numbers during ww2, but 40% seems high...just a quick basic search is saying M4A3 (76) # produced 1,925 ?  Tiger 1 # produced 1,300 ?

If those numbers are correct, then........

Like i said not sure if these numbers are correct but Jwilly probably would know

Think the 76 was over 5000 produced.

[delems]

So half has many tigers were made than s76?
Yet allies get 12 and axis gets 4?

Not that production numbers should fully define what is in game, but still.

Edited May 28, 2021 by delems

[goreblimey]

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/data/sherman_production.html

closer to 10000 76s all versions in this reference

[kazee]

2 minutes ago, goreblimey said:

closer to 10000 76s all versions in this reference

of those 10K, 1925 is the s76 that is in game

[kazee]

46 minutes ago, delems said:

Not that production numbers should fully define what is in game, but still.

maybe not "fully define" however if they are gonna use production cost per nation numbers to define a figure for each tank, then full production numbers should be put in too

[kazee]

so looks like one of my replies was removed....censorship is even here on a game forum...really sad to see

[dm79]

3 hours ago, BMBM said:

Overmatch IS in the live game and IS working to specs, as our internal logs reveal. I will have to defer to Scotsman for a full technical explanation but in my understanding overmatch occurs when the projectile diameter is in the region of 3x or more compared to the opposing plate. This, given sufficient joules of kinetic transfer, will stove in the much thinner plate - in addition to penetrating. If the projectile does not meet these criteria (armor too thick, projectile caliber too small) it may yet penetrate unless it glances off, given sufficient velocity and caliber. IOW, you’ll typically see armored cars and light tanks as victims of overmatch rather than tanks (frontal engagements). This effect is however not represented by the visual damage model.

This is not the correct calculation where is projectile x3 compared to armour thickness coming from?

So this is the calculation for the upper hull of the M4a2 

Upper hull is 51mm at an angle of 56 degrees

The cosine rule would make this as follows: 

The cosine of 56 is 0.56  so 51mm x 0.56 = 91mm

A line of sight thickness of 91mm 

To calculate the effective amour value which takes in the 56 degree slope you will need to take the normal thickness which is 51mm and use the following table to get the nearest multiplayer for the slope so in this case 56 is 2.13

 

So 51mm x 2.13 = 108.63mm

Next we work out if the shell will over match by using the following formula

Shell diameter divided by normal thickness 

so a 75mm shell  divided by 51mm = 0.68 

If this figure is greater than 1 then the shell will not overmatch, if is less than 1 then it will over match, then we take all the data above and use the following calculation to work out what the thickness would be if hit by a 75mm shell.

51 x (1+((2,13−1)×0,68))=90.1884 

So 90 mm

Or you can use this it does a good job of getting the value close, make sure you leave the secondary angle 0 and make sure cosine is enabled as well as normal.

https://panzerworld.com/relative-armor-calculator?armor_thickness=51&angle_1=56&angle_2=0&angle_type=cosine&calculation_type=normal

The 76 hull would 92.5mm

63mm @47 degrees

63 x (1+((1,69−1)×0,68))=92.5596

Most data i can find indicates that the 75mm on the 4g and even better 75mm on the stug should be doing the following, you can clearly see the guns on these tanks should be going through the front of the above tanks if the game code is correct. Easy test for someone still playing the game, go shoot a S75 or 76 in the main front hull at 500 to 800 meters and you should kill the crew, make sure to avoid the driver and hull mg lumps on the 75 as they are flat and you could always pen them.

 

 

[delems]

Ya, something wrong.

How does 20 AP from tiger at 1200m not kill s75, but he deguns tiger 1st shot?

[delems]

LOL, what a farce.

Another USA town frontline --- how many are French now?

[BMBM]

3 hours ago, dm79 said:

If this figure is greater than 1 then the shell will not overmatch, if is less than 1 then it will over match, then we take all the data above and use the following calculation to work out what the thickness would be if hit by a 75mm shell.

I _think_ we’re talking about two different things here. It seems to me that your definition of overmatch = defeat armor (ie penetrate), whereas my definition/understanding of it is based on the effect of large caliber shells meeting thin plate. E.g a 240mm naval shell crashing into a 30mm tank side. The ”standard” penetration calculation that you seem to be describing is working very well and has done so for 20 years. Again, I will have to defer to Scotsman for clarification here and math support - my area is all polygons and brushes

WRT to seemingly good shots not producing expected results, it is quite likely that the shooter underestimates the angle or that the shot actually hits a slope/curve that produces a glance-off. I see that a lot in the logs, which are exquisitely detailed about range, velocity, angle, joules and effects etc including spall and overmatch - calculations that are made for every shot all the time. 

[Scotsman]

The overmatch condition in the game has to do with increasing the amount of spall if the appropriate conditions are met. There is an opposite to this as well in which a projectile can sail right on through very thin plates. If your projo falls in the appropriate band with regards to diameter vs the armor plate thickness (and other conditions -  I wont go into given the time of night here), the amount of spall and its mass is increased significantly. This reflects the failure of the plate and its welds as well as surplus post penetration energy....and that material is carried into the vehicle along with the projectile. The picture below depicts an overmatch condition. Typically - an AP projectile must carry over at least 10% of its initial velocity behind the armor to be effective at killing a vehicle. Less than that drops the P(K) significantly. It's not enough to penetrate - you must penetrate with sufficient residual energy to be effective against the targets behind the armor. 

There are many other factors that enter into the game penetration calculation, including the number of frags generated if an APHE detonates. That has to do with the charge carried and the shell wall thickness....and each and every APHE in game has its own unique detonation characteristics.

There's a lot of stuff in the updated penetration calculations which unfortunately is not yet implemented. 

All for now - off to bed. 

I need to go into tip off and other factors all of which can greatly reduce armor penetration below spec- but no energy left for today. The one thing I want to drive home though is that its insufficient to just penetrate with KE ammunition. Your have to have surplus energy left after the penetration to be effective. If you don't have sufficient residual energy the P(K) drops significantly. You can't just look at armor thickness vs penetration alone. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Scotsman

[Scotsman]

One other addition - APHE is poorly understood in the community imho. The charge is simply designed to fracture the KE projectile - it’s not an HE round in the sense of the word people seem to think. The frag velocities are typically low (100-300 m/s) but the mass is high - which is just the ticket to damage or destroy equipment. 

[undercova]

15 hours ago, dfire said:

Here are numbers of produced tanks for a bunch of the tanks being discussed to saved people the time and headache (as well as some other popular ones): 

I will let you guys duke it out and argue over them vs in game

3.....2.......1........ GO!

 

~6,706 m10's produced (including variants)

Achilles - War Thunder Wiki

~2,100-2,200 fireflies produced 

Sherman Firefly - Wikipedia

~50,000 Sherman produced (including variants)

M4A2 - War Thunder Wiki

~2,915 Sherman76 produced

M4A2 (76) W - War Thunder Wiki

~2,507 M18 hellcat produced 

M18 GMC - War Thunder Wiki

~5,968 churchills produced (including variants)

Churchill VII - War Thunder Wiki

~6,000 panther produced

Panzer V Panther (tanks-encyclopedia.com)

~1,347 Tiger I produced 

Tiger I Tank in World War II (thoughtco.com)

~3,960 4H produced

Pz.IV H - War Thunder Wiki

~11,300 Stug 3G produced (including variants)

StuG III G - War Thunder Wiki

Keep in mind that the US/UK also transported many Shermans / Churchills and co to Russia and Germany gave quite a few tanks and TDs to allied countires like Finland (mainly StuGs)

I guess we can also assume that most of the axis tank units were used on Eastern Front

Edited May 29, 2021 by undercova

[BMBM]

As a curiosity, someone else said:

1. Tiger tank deployment: 

>>> 35-38 Tigers deployed in North Africa, nov 1942 – may 1943. The maximum number of Tigers operational at peak force in Tunis was about 15-20 units. 

>>>180-190 Tigers deployed in Italy, jun 1943 – may 1945. The average number of Tigers available at any given time since their deployment in Italy was about 30-40 units, with a probable peak at about 50.

>>>230-240 Tigers deployed on the western front (France/Rhine defense) 
Out of these, about 150 were present during the Normandy campaign (June – Aug 1944). About 60-80 were available at peak force. Only 4-5 Tigers escaped from Normandy, but it appears that they were all blown up/abandoned on their way back anyway. 

The rest of 80-90 Tigers used on the western front were mostly Tiger II’s, deployed during the Ardennes offensive and subsequent battles (dec 1944 – may 1945). No more than 30 were available at any given time, and never en masse. 

>>> ~ 1300 Tigers deployed on the eastern front (72%), between aug 1942 and may 1945. The maximum number of Tigers deployed in the east was about 350-400 units, in late 1943. Out of these, no more than 250 were operational at peak force. 

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=212557

[dm79]

11 hours ago, BMBM said:

I _think_ we’re talking about two different things here. It seems to me that your definition of overmatch = defeat armor (ie penetrate), whereas my definition/understanding of it is based on the effect of large caliber shells meeting thin plate. E.g a 240mm naval shell crashing into a 30mm tank side. The ”standard” penetration calculation that you seem to be describing is working very well and has done so for 20 years. Again, I will have to defer to Scotsman for clarification here and math support - my area is all polygons and brushes

WRT to seemingly good shots not producing expected results, it is quite likely that the shooter underestimates the angle or that the shot actually hits a slope/curve that produces a glance-off. I see that a lot in the logs, which are exquisitely detailed about range, velocity, angle, joules and effects etc including spall and overmatch - calculations that are made for every shot all the time. 

You are talking about something else i think what you are describing is called "hullbreak" like this from a 152mm russian gun. 

What i am talking about and hopefully that's clear after the amount of effort and detail i have given in this post is:

A shells diameter being higher than the normal thickness of the armor plate being hit, thus lowering the effective thickness of sloped armour which would then allow said shell to penetrate said sloped armor at ranges it would not were this calculation done by the game engine.

As i have said before game experience seems to indicate this calculation does not take place, the only calculation that takes place as i am aware is how much pen a shell has, what angle the shell hits at then the armor thickness at the point of impact, does it then pen or not.

This image and output seems to backup my view that the angle is understood but the overmatch is not calculated in game just a loss of total joules subtracted from the original amount.

Don't throw bad shots into the discussion, i understand that can be the case but you have to remove this out of the picture as "what ifs" make calculations imposible. I am not a code writer but not sure you can put in WTF RNG moments into code?

Also ignore visual elements i know the game does not show you.

@Scots, so if i am reading what you wrote correctly then the game is not doing overmatch correctly as it stands, the game is just increasing the chance for spall rather than lowering the effective thickness of a plate depending on the shell diameter.

I am not talking about catastrophic plate failure for thin plates being hit by big or very high energy shells why does this keep getting brought into a conversation about the 7.5cm KwK 40 L/43  Pzgr 39 L/43(AP) 75mm 6.8Kg 740M/Sec and 7.5cm KwK 40 L/48  7.5cm Pzgr 39 L/48(AP) 75mm 6.8Kg 792M/Sec shells hitting the frontal hull plate on the M4a2 and M4a3, i know this calculation can get way more complicated but i am trying to keep it simple without such variables as a face hardanding, manufacture defects, point hardness on shells, German  APCBC having a cap to increase performance against sloped armor, normalization where the shell will try to create a flatter angle as it hits, spaced armor effects and many other effects we could likely talk about for hours over quite a few beers. I am just looking at the game to do something very simple. 

Right now it feels like i am talking to politicians who are giving half truths and trying to miss direct the conversation into areas i am not interested in. Just a simple yes or no, does a 4g/stug g round hitting the front of the M4a2 or M4a3 lower the effective thickness of the plate to around 90mm?

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by dm79

[Kidd27]

27 minutes ago, dm79 said:

I seem to remember a way back discussion that specifically noted overmatch was not part of the code. (this may have changed) So I am of the belief that it isnt. It explains AP rounds passing through pans/232's.

[TEX64]

!S, DM79 -

I appreciate the question which is way beyond my capabilities.  We are fortunate to have such dedicated gamers as BMBM and SCOTSMAN to continue development of the game.  I thought your post was great but the last sentence could be misconstrued; otherwise, two side-effects occur.

1) the thread gets locked

2) CRS developers cease to post 

Neither of these things helps anyone.  I do appreciate the details discussed in this thread, as long as it stays above board.

!S,

tex

[BMBM]

Cue Scotsman

I think he gave a pretty good explanation of what overmatch is and how it’s represented in the game. I certainly can’t explain the minutieae of the calcs/ballistics, but I can guarantee that we’re not trying to hide anything although we for obvious proprietary reasons can’t reveal everything under the hood. The log you posted is much aged btw, there’s a lot more going on currently.

[fidd]

You're starting to knock on the door of the metallurgies involved there. If I recall correctly, the axis went for Face-hardened (FHA) and the Allies for Rolled Homogenous (RHA). Again, if IIRC, FHA is more likely to resist AP shot, but if it fails, it fails worse being more brittle than RHA. RHA is easier to make, and more tolerant of manufacturing errors when the steel is being made, whereas FHA can become badly embrittled if the manufacturing of the steel is not well controlled. This is why from around '43 onwards, you start to see some impact failures on some armour on some vehicles which did not occur on earlier examples of the same type. The other issue at play was the increasing lack of exotic materials used in FHA steel to offset this known problem.

I don't think we should be modelling this, however, it's a documented issue with FHA's actual production and performance. (Again IIRC as it's years since I read this stuff)

So I think we may need to be a bit careful about using post battle photographs to inform what should happen to FHA if it's hit by an xyz gun. Or expecting FHA and RHA to perform the same. There's also different performance of the two types of armour v HE or HESH hits, with much more spall occurring on FHA, even if the plate fails to be broken away from it's neighbours. 

 

[dm79]

23 minutes ago, fidd said:

You're starting to knock on the door of the metallurgies involved there. If I recall correctly, the axis went for Face-hardened (FHA) and the Allies for Rolled Homogenous (RHA). Again, if IIRC, FHA is more likely to resist AP shot, but if it fails, it fails worse being more brittle than RHA. RHA is easier to make, and more tolerant of manufacturing errors when the steel is being made, whereas FHA can become badly embrittled if the manufacturing of the steel is not well controlled. This is why from around '43 onwards, you start to see some impact failures on some armour on some vehicles which did not occur on earlier examples of the same type. The other issue at play was the increasing lack of exotic materials used in FHA steel to offset this known problem.

I don't think we should be modelling this, however, it's a documented issue with FHA's actual production and performance. (Again IIRC as it's years since I read this stuff)

So I think we may need to be a bit careful about using post battle photographs to inform what should happen to FHA if it's hit by an xyz gun. Or expecting FHA and RHA to perform the same. There's also different performance of the two types of armour v HE or HESH hits, with much more spall occurring on FHA, even if the plate fails to be broken away from it's neighbours. 

 

Thing is i am not, i am deliberty trying to stay away from going that deep and as i said trying to keep it as simple as possible, as a realist there is no way all the complexities can be coded in and also why would you want that, it's taken me 3-5 posts just to try and explain what i view as the basics, imagine the developers trying to explain mega complex stuff in a game.

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by dm79

[dm79]

30 minutes ago, TEX64 said:

!S, DM79 -

I appreciate the question which is way beyond my capabilities.  We are fortunate to have such dedicated gamers as BMBM and SCOTSMAN to continue development of the game.  I thought your post was great but the last sentence could be misconstrued; otherwise, two side-effects occur.

1) the thread gets locked

2) CRS developers cease to post 

Neither of these things helps anyone.  I do appreciate the details discussed in this thread, as long as it stays above board.

!S,

tex

Understood Tex, just frustrated and not sure how much clearer i can put the question over or with any more detail to get a straight answer, the replies are appreciated its my problem if i am frustrated they don't convey what i want to see.

[JAMES10]

It is my understanding that Overmatch results in catastrophic armor failure (shatters like glass) and not penetration. It is also my understanding the measurements are the diameter of the round vs the actual thickness of the armor struck, ignoring the sloping calculations. ie 40mm of armor at any angle, etc.

Cheers.

Edited May 29, 2021 by JAMES10