Forgotten Hope Public Forum

Forgotten Hope 2 => Bug Reporting => Topic started by: xzimit on 10-02-2016, 04:02:20

Title: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: xzimit on 10-02-2016, 04:02:20
I test T-34-85 in Game's test map, it can't penetra Tiger's hull front armor, but Panzer IV can do penetrate it.

Obviously, this is a wrong date of game. I don't know where devs get the penetration date, but as I know both Russia and USA test date show that T-34-85's Zis-53 gun can penetrate Tiger's hull front and have more penetration than Panzer IV. The Russia date from Kubinka test, it shows that 85mm gun can penetrate Tiger's hull front at 1000m. The USA date from Aberdeen Proving Grounds, which can be found in <WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery>, because this is a third party test, so it is a fair test, the test shows that T-34-85's gun has more penetration than Panzer IV, and the USA test performance date is better than Russia test.

So I don't know why devs set a wrong T-34-85 penetration date in game, this bug is also in FH1, even if there are no date from Russia and USA, let's think about that: Russia equip the 85mm gun on T-34 is just for against Tiger and Panther, if it is not take effect, why Russia do that? Russia are not stupid mans, so it just because 85mm gun take effect to against Tiger and Panther, they equip it on T-34, isn't it?

Actually, Panther 's mantlet can be penetrated by 45mm(53-K) APCR in Kursk Battle, it also can be penetrated by 85mm APHEBC, and there are also many famous battles show that T-34-85 can penetrate Tiger's hull front.

So, please devs check and fix this bug.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: xzimit on 10-02-2016, 14:02:17
Forgotten to say, what I said T-34-85 can penetrate Tiger's hull front and Panther's mantlet in history is used APHEBC, which is the AP in game. T-34-85 can penetrate Tiger's hull front and Panther's mantlet by its AP and APCR in history, not only APCR.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: Stubbfan on 10-02-2016, 14:02:37
Hi. We will double check our values. It would be nice if you could post some links to your references.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: xzimit on 10-02-2016, 16:02:38
Hi. We will double check our values. It would be nice if you could post some links to your references.

The <WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery>

You can read at http://zh.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery#scribd

Download it at http://vk.com/doc67707672_338610150?hash=22e03378f78ea04905&dl=958ae1a9265ab60d1b

In page 97, it shows Russia guns' pentration at 0 degree, and in page101, it shows German guns' pentration at 0 degree:
                            0m        100m     500m     1000m

T-34-76 76.2mm      91mm    90mm     80mm    73mm
T-34-85 85mm        145mm   141mm   128mm   110mm
IS-2 122mm            216mm   212mm   200mm   182mm
PanzerIV 75mmL48   133mm   127mm   117mm   105mm
Tiger 88mmL56        161mm   157mm   143mm   128mm
Panther 75mmL71     186mm   182mm   162mm   144mm

All the date above are normal AP's date, Russia ballistics are AP(HE)BC, German are APCBC, have no APCR.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: xzimit on 10-02-2016, 16:02:24
Hi. We will double check our values. It would be nice if you could post some links to your references.

The photo about 85mm pentrate Tiger is a link, I don't know it does or not can be see well, let's try them:

1.85mm penetrate Tiger hull front up at 1000m
(http://d.pcs.baidu.com/thumbnail/51b96e81658d609a94dec855662e3e34?fid=2717919998-250528-1016536353658765&time=1455199200&sign=FDTAER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-1WSnDHoZGbACHOp8y2l2FwNXhdU%3D&rt=sh&expires=2h&r=606775589&sharesign=unknown&size=c710_u500&quality=100)
Link: http://pan.baidu.com/s/1mgYUyTi

2.85mm penetrate Tiger hull front down at 1500m
(http://d.pcs.baidu.com/thumbnail/8984ebb8210554692a45dd8ba572e6ff?fid=2717919998-250528-1095819650804251&time=1455199200&sign=FDTAER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-fIr14uXcWfFhzwaVnqfqAovOxAA%3D&rt=sh&expires=2h&r=111675692&sharesign=unknown&size=c710_u500&quality=100)
Link: http://pan.baidu.com/s/1dEx5nPJ

3.85mm penetrate Tiger hull side up at 1450m
(http://d.pcs.baidu.com/thumbnail/103495ee5c0d14c672ff695923347fe0?fid=2717919998-250528-840718957518555&time=1455199200&sign=FDTAER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-7I1JEzJI50D8ymDzkbEfFSBtzUo%3D&rt=sh&expires=2h&r=953135299&sharesign=unknown&size=c710_u500&quality=100)
Link: http://pan.baidu.com/s/1TjrWy

4.85mm pentrate Tiger hull side down twice( one side penetrate in, and other side penetrate out) at 800m
(http://d.pcs.baidu.com/thumbnail/671d16721362d9a56df1db33b441a305?fid=2717919998-250528-900457290688981&time=1455199200&sign=FDTAER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-dKy3TMrybYBNmiLMMV5MYuA4CME%3D&rt=sh&expires=2h&r=588322154&sharesign=unknown&size=c710_u500&quality=100)
Link: http://pan.baidu.com/s/1hrpr6pI
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: xzimit on 10-02-2016, 17:02:29
Hi. We will double check our values. It would be nice if you could post some links to your references.

The <WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery> also shows that how powerful a slop armor is, and what is " slop effect", T-34 45mm 60 degree slop armor has only 90mm physical thickness, but give it at least 105~110mm effect thickness ( or even more) when against German 75mm ballistics, it is not a rate of ricochet, it a effect improving thickness, that's why more and more tanks use the slop armor behind T-34.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: Ts4EVER on 10-02-2016, 17:02:13
Sloped armor already works like that in FH2, it is scaled up to factor in the slope.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: hitm4k3r on 10-02-2016, 21:02:28
First of all, nice to see that people are enjoying and using the firing range  :)

I've heard alot of discussions about the T34/85 in 2.5 allready so I thought I would chime in.

About your penetration tables in that book: keep in mind that the ammunition used was not AP ammunition, as we have it ingame, but APBC wich has a balistic cap. According to the book that you linked to on page 99: "Critical penetration data for Russian APBC is currently unavailable, namely performance against face hardened armor ...". All those figures are based on different sources using converted success chances and stuff like that. "Penetration estimates for Russian AP against homogenous FHA were prepared by those nose hardness analysis and vary from data published on The Russian battlefield Site". So infact, you have alot of estimations from different sources with converted and freely chosen chances of success, that use a completely different ammunition type than what we have ingame.

As for the T34/85 in FH2:  the normal AP of the T34/85 can penetrate the front of the turret of the Panther (Ausf. A aswell as Ausf. G) but not the Tiger I, but you have to be very precise to land a shot and not hit the mantlet on the Panther. When you hit the mantlet it will bounce off obviously and you are most likely toast in the time you try to hit that sweet spot. The optics of the Russian tanks were inferior to the German technique and the guns less accurate. We have this represented in the game, so trying to kill the Panther (110m round sloped mantlet) or Tiger I (100 mm @ 20°) from the front with normal AP round with the T34/85 is pure suicide and I wouldn't even try it so in short: NOT RECOMMENDED!  ;D

The Russians didn't bring the APCR ammunition because they were bored. With this ammunition they had the capability to penetrate the Tiger I aswell as the Panther, wich is possible right now in FH2, even on the mantlet of the Panther, wich according to other sources I've found (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/soviet-union/guns.asp) is an overstatement when you get to ranges reaching 1000m. So there is nothing bugged or anything in that regard and with the limitations of the engine in mind those tank characterics are impleneted pretty well.

That said, the scale of tank combat in FH2 is alot smaller, so long range tank fights ingame are quite often at around 400m (wich is pretty far for FH2 standards). If you keep this in mind you will understand why the T34/85 is not the ultimate killing machine that many people expected. So for example if you see a Panther at the edge of the fog and with a viewdistance of 560 on Dukla Pass you could translate this into a distance of aprox. 1120 metre in reality. Good luck to not bounce off and hit the sweetspot at that distance and kill the Panther from the front with two successive shots. The Panther will be most likely just a few pixels big.

On a last note: I see alot of players not using the strength of the Russian tanks, this being their number and speed. Nor do I see the more powerful tanks like the IS2 used properly. On maps like Dukla Pass you have to rush the flags with tanks and transport and take out AT positions with arty. From my experience people rather tend to camp with the mighty T34 somewhere on the ridge where they are an easy target for the German tanks and AT guns. So people need to understand that they have to use the Russian tanks in bigger groups while moving fast to overcome the long range capabilities of the German guns. Those tanks are made for fast flanking manouvers and the 85mm is just about right to kill the more common German tanks like the PIV H or the StuGs from the front.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: Ts4EVER on 11-02-2016, 02:02:19
Capitalist propaganda!

In all seriousness though, if we made a mistake with any of the code you can tell us and it will be fixed, but please include clear and somewhat reputable sources. Meaning no data from other video games and no eye witness stuff ("My Grandfather said..." etc).
Also note that almost everything in FH2 is scaled down by half (that's why the Panzerfaust 30 only flies 15m) for instance and in some cases gameplay comes first. For instance, the IS2 reloads faster than irl (still slower than other tanks), because gameplay in FH2 is a lot more fast paced than real life as well, so the "realistic" reload would be too much a nerf.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: xzimit on 11-02-2016, 03:02:58
First of all, nice to see that people are enjoying and using the firing range  :)

I've heard alot of discussions about the T34/85 in 2.5 allready so I thought I would chime in.

About your penetration tables in that book: keep in mind that the ammunition used was not AP ammunition, as we have it ingame, but APBC wich has a balistic cap. According to the book that you linked to on page 99: "Critical penetration data for Russian APBC is currently unavailable, namely performance against face hardened armor ...". All those figures are based on different sources using converted success chances and stuff like that. "Penetration estimates for Russian AP against homogenous FHA were prepared by those nose hardness analysis and vary from data published on The Russian battlefield Site". So infact, you have alot of estimations from different sources with converted and freely chosen chances of success, that use a completely different ammunition type than what we have ingame.

As for the T34/85 in FH2:  the normal AP of the T34/85 can penetrate the front of the turret of the Panther (Ausf. A aswell as Ausf. G) but not the Tiger I, but you have to be very precise to land a shot and not hit the mantlet on the Panther. When you hit the mantlet it will bounce off obviously and you are most likely toast in the time you try to hit that sweet spot. The optics of the Russian tanks were inferior to the German technique and the guns less accurate. We have this represented in the game, so trying to kill the Panther (110m round sloped mantlet) or Tiger I (100 mm @ 20°) from the front with normal AP round with the T34/85 is pure suicide and I wouldn't even try it so in short: NOT RECOMMENDED!  ;D

The Russians didn't bring the APCR ammunition because they were bored. With this ammunition they had the capability to penetrate the Tiger I aswell as the Panther, wich is possible right now in FH2, even on the mantlet of the Panther, wich according to other sources I've found (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/soviet-union/guns.asp) is an overstatement when you get to ranges reaching 1000m. So there is nothing bugged or anything in that regard and with the limitations of the engine in mind those tank characterics are impleneted pretty well.


Maybe my words not clear enough, and I never said that T-34-85 can pentrate Tiger I turret front armor, that place have almost 120~150 thickness, only a little place is 110mm.

Let me reorganize my views:

1. I mention the <WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery> is because that Russia, German and USA or other Countries are used different standard on gun penetration test, they used different target panel, diffenrent penetrate rate to mensurate gun's penetration, and diffenrent conversions to their penetration table, so to compare these guns with its own countries table is unreasonable. The <WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery> is only book I found that try to conversions these date in same standard, and it's based on USA army formula which is be tested in test ground.

And I don't want to argue that what penetration 85mm gun should have, I just want to said that 85mm gun has more penetration than Panzer IV's 75mm L48.

2. I give the photo 85mm penetrate Tiger I in Kubinka test ground is want to said that 85mm gun could penetrate Tiger I hull front at 1000m in test ground, also it is in a ideal condition, there are no angle divergence between gun directing and hull directing.

Combined with the above two points, I test T-34-85 in FH2 game Firing Range map, I use its normal AP shoot Tiger I and Panthers at 10m, but 85mm can't penetrate Tiger I hull front and Panther turret front, but Panzer IV can do it, even in a large incidence angle, Panzer IV's normal 75mmL48 AP even can penetrate Tiger I turret front, it is so close distance, I don't think this is accurate problem, isnt' it?

So, I hope you check these date.

And I want to said some other things, in fact, only a little part of German tanks ( like Tiger I and Panther) has better accurate than Russia and USA tanks, some of Russia and USA tanks even have more accurate than Germans, like T-34-85, IS-2 and M4A3E8, Firefly, all of them have better magnification of aim sight and gun accurate than Panzer IV, IS-2's 122mm gun even have same accurate as 88mm L71. Of couse, these have nothing to do with this topic ;D

I hope that I has reorganize my views by these words.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: xzimit on 11-02-2016, 03:02:40
Capitalist propaganda!

In all seriousness though, if we made a mistake with any of the code you can tell us and it will be fixed, but please include clear and somewhat reputable sources. Meaning no data from other video games and no eye witness stuff ("My Grandfather said..." etc).
Also note that almost everything in FH2 is scaled down by half (that's why the Panzerfaust 30 only flies 15m) for instance and in some cases gameplay comes first. For instance, the IS2 reloads faster than irl (still slower than other tanks), because gameplay in FH2 is a lot more fast paced than real life as well, so the "realistic" reload would be too much a nerf.

I reorganize my views in #9, please check it does or not meet the requirement.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 11-02-2016, 04:02:33
Man I love WW2 ballistics data :P I usually never get into these conversations, but I'll kick myself for that later.

xzimit I just want to make sure of the bug you're reporting. Just make sure to give us all the factors so we can try to reporduce the bug ourselves. It helps to see exactly what's wrong.
Things like;
What distance did you fire at?
Were they both from the same angle?
Were they both at the same spot on the tank?

I just tested this on a local server and can kind of confirm what xzimit is saying.

I fired the T34/85 AP round from 50m at the front hull of the Tiger I. 0 degree angle. (just to the left of the MG port. basically dead center) The Tiger took 0 damage.

I fired the PzIV H AP round from 50m at the front hull of the Tiger I. 0 degree angle. (same spot) It took the tiger down 6 'health points'

this is just a screen of the Tiger's damage after the PzIV shot.
(http://i.imgur.com/qukiTfg.jpg)

So yea this would seem off to me. (unless the 75 mm KwK 40 L/48 actually had better penetration than the 85mm Gun ZiS-S-53) Stubb can double check the values tho. I have literally 0 knowledge when it comes to how that works in-game.

But I'll leave you guys to argue the probably of penetration on 71 year old ballistics data ;D
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: xzimit on 11-02-2016, 15:02:32
Hi. We will double check our values. It would be nice if you could post some links to your references.

First of all, nice to see that people are enjoying and using the firing range  :)

I've heard alot of discussions about the T34/85 in 2.5 allready so I thought I would chime in.
...

Capitalist propaganda!

In all seriousness though, if we made a mistake with any of the code you can tell us and it will be fixed, but please include clear and somewhat reputable sources. Meaning no data from other video games and no eye witness stuff ("My Grandfather said..." etc).
...

I upgrade my photo links in #4, I think it will can be see by others, you can check them, and as a reference.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: Eat Uranium on 13-02-2016, 11:02:40
Just to simplify testing this stuff: distance and angle can only modify the damage done by a shot in BF2, they cannot change the actual "penetration" or "thickness" of the shot/armour.  Hence you can test this stuff from 0 metres and 0 degrees.

The T-34-85 uses AP ammo with "penetration" of 90 mm and APCR ammo with "penetration" of 110 mm.
The Pz IV H uses AP ammo with a "penetration" of 100 mm.

As far as I'm aware the performance of FH2 guns was determined using penetration data at 500 metres at 30 degrees, with 50% success rate.  Other data are converted as best as possible to these conditions.

The phrases "penetration" and "thickness" are put in speech marks to indicate that actually the way this works is a large table of relations between different materials: each cell having damage modifiers and sounds and visual effects.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: Matthew_Baker on 13-02-2016, 17:02:10
The T-34-85 uses AP ammo with "penetration" of 90 mm and APCR ammo with "penetration" of 110 mm.
The Pz IV H uses AP ammo with a "penetration" of 100

So the PzIV should cause more damage than the T-34/85?
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: Ts4EVER on 13-02-2016, 18:02:19
It means it can penetrate thicker armor material.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: Eat Uranium on 13-02-2016, 19:02:18
So the PzIV should cause more damage than the T-34/85?
The 75mm AP will have a slightly better damage modifier against given armour than the 85mm AP, but the 85mm will have a higher base damage due to the higher calibre.  Without looking at the numbers I couldn't say which one does more damage.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: zyssyxn on 14-02-2016, 14:02:50
OK, let me do follow Matthew_Baker's test.

I will use T-34-85, Panzer IV, M4A3(76)W's normal AP shoot 5 Tiger and Panther's areas in less 10m, that is:
a. Tiger turret front
b. Tiger hull up front
c. Tiger hull down(uncover with tracks)
d. Tiger hull down(cover with tracks)
e. Panther turret front

1. T-34-85
Penetrated: none of them
(http://i.imgur.com/GxWXr53.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/eJh8QbH.jpg)

2. Panzer IV H
Penetrated: b, c, e
(http://i.imgur.com/blNy12v.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/nZYnuDw.jpg)

3. M4A3(76)W
Penetrated: a, b, c, d, e
(http://i.imgur.com/EqoGLni.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/AOuk8Nw.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/I9LMCIo.jpg)

I have to say that it is surprise me. Why? I think many of FH2 players are fans of WWII, and I think devs are also. And it is clear for us that, amongst M1A2 76mm gun( M4A3(76)W), 75mm/L48( Panzer IV H) and Zis-s-53( T-34-85), Zis-s-53 85mm gun has the best penetration of them.

So why it is opposite in game? Yes, this may be not a "bug", because this is a mistake!

For history? No, whether 85mm gun does or not has better penetration than M1A2 76mm and 75mm L48 gun, it still can penetrate Tiger hull up front obvious, but it can't do in game.

For balance or entertainment? I don't think so, make T-34-85 can't penetrate Tiger hull front will make balance and entertainment more worse, we can decrease the numbers of T-34-85 in maps, or instead them by T-34-76 to have better balance and keep entertainment. Make T-34-85 no history for banlance and entertainment is a worst way for game, if players find that their Tiger tank can't penetrate T-34-85's hull front, how they will feel?

I have three suggestions:
1. M4A3(76)W has too high penetration, to make its penetration as same as PanzerIV H is a good way.
2. Increase T-34-85's normal AP penetration as same as M4A3(76)W in game now, at least as same as PanzerIV H's penetration,
Increase T-34-85's APCR can penetrate Panther's hull front. For banlance, decrease the numbers of T-34-85 in every maps, or instead by T-34-76.
3. Increase Tiger's turret front armor, it is only little armor more than its hull front, but in history, most of its turret front armor are overlapping, so its thickness is 110mm to 140mm, but only less part of it is 110mm.

I post these are not censure devs, I think devs are also WWII fans and love it as me, they work for FH2 very hard and do not ask for remuneration, they are respectable. And I just love FH2 too and want to improve it better and better. So, I hope my suggestions will useful for devs.

Thanks for devs and players who love FH2!
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: nysä on 18-02-2016, 23:02:15
An interesting topic. It's fairly difficult to consider all the balance factors and still, make the game historically pleasing for everyone.

When it comes to the sloping armour, it was quite easily penetrated by a piercing round with a ballistic cap (PzGr 39): it just didn't ricochet that easily off the sloped surface, especially if the angle was less than 60 degrees. Sure, T-34-85's frontal armour was increased - but, at the cost of the rear armour, as well as top and bottom. Also, the linking of the armour plates became much weaker and the turret's base (+ring) became more vulnerable to ricochets and small caliber rounds. And then there's the case of deterioration of the steel quality, which in the Soviet tanks hit lower than 250-280 Brinells, when in the American tanks it was pretty much standard 300-320 (and got better towards the end of the war, due to consistent quality control). 

Personally, I'd find the 85 too accurate if I'd quote Robert Michulec's "T-34 Mythological Weapon": "the theoretical accuracy of the 85 mm gun was 63% at 1,500 meters", while Panther's 75 mm L/70 gun was almost 100% (theoretical) and 72% (actual) at the same distance."

So.. maybe 85 could have more punch, but please make it less accurate ;)
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: zyssyxn on 19-02-2016, 15:02:31
An interesting topic. It's fairly difficult to consider all the balance factors and still, make the game historically pleasing for everyone.

When it comes to the sloping armour, it was quite easily penetrated by a piercing round with a ballistic cap (PzGr 39): it just didn't ricochet that easily off the sloped surface, especially if the angle was less than 60 degrees. Sure, T-34-85's frontal armour was increased - but, at the cost of the rear armour, as well as top and bottom. Also, the linking of the armour plates became much weaker and the turret's base (+ring) became more vulnerable to ricochets and small caliber rounds. And then there's the case of deterioration of the steel quality, which in the Soviet tanks hit lower than 250-280 Brinells, when in the American tanks it was pretty much standard 300-320 (and got better towards the end of the war, due to consistent quality control). 

Personally, I'd find the 85 too accurate if I'd quote Robert Michulec's "T-34 Mythological Weapon": "the theoretical accuracy of the 85 mm gun was 63% at 1,500 meters", while Panther's 75 mm L/70 gun was almost 100% (theoretical) and 72% (actual) at the same distance."

So.. maybe 85 could have more punch, but please make it less accurate ;)

Unfortunately, almost of your points are wrong.

First, for all kind of AP round in WWII were less effect on sloping armour, no matter what is it, AP, APCR, APBC or APCBC, have a ballistic cap may decrease the "slope effect", but can't counteract it, this actuality was continued untill the APFSDF was designed. If you have saw the test of American Aberdeen Proving Grounds, you will find that how the "slope effect" is.

Second, American test the main type tanks of Soviet in WWII, include T-34-76, KV-1, T-34-85 and IS-2 in Aberdeen Proving Grounds, they found that Soviet tanks have a high Brinells armor, which is between 300~400 Brinells, Americans even worry about too high hardness armor will decrease the protection effects, but they shoot these tanks' armor in test and found that these armors are as well as Amarican normal hardness armors. Amricans also test the steel quality of Soviet tanks, they found that T-34 have a high steel quality, both the roll armor of hull and the casting armor of turret, Americans even praise the casting turret of T-34 that have a high quality casting technique. The only deficient things is the casting quality of KV-1 not very well.

The accuracy of Soviet gun are also have a well quality, both American and Soviet test the IS-2's 122mm D25T gun show that it have a same accuracy as KingTiger's 88mm L71 gun, the only advantage of Germans are the magnification of gun sights, Tiger I, Panther and KingTiger have 2.5/5x magnification, IS-2 and T-34-85 have 4x magnification, but for other German tanks, like Panzer IV, Stug III and others have only 2.5x magnification gun sights.

Most of these dates can be found in <WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery>, and also in other books and official dates. If you are interesting in it, I can give you some links.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: nysä on 19-02-2016, 17:02:11
Sure. Not going to nitpick all your answers, but c'mon;

Quote
Stug III and others have only 2.5x magnification gun sights

Sfl.Z.F. 1a = 5x / 8 degrees

No need for links, I have a library worth of "few" thousands on the German and Allied armour - I can do some healthy comparisons based upon this. But you can always stick to your WoT/Warthunder, if the Soviet bias is not strong enough for you  ::)
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: zyssyxn on 19-02-2016, 19:02:15
Sure. Not going to nitpick all your answers, but c'mon;

Quote
Stug III and others have only 2.5x magnification gun sights

Sfl.Z.F. 1a = 5x / 8 degrees

No need for links, I have a library worth of "few" thousands on the German and Allied armour - I can do some healthy comparisons based upon this. But you can always stick to your WoT/Warthunder, if the Soviet bias is not strong enough for you  ::)

So you will stick to your "library ", which even have a wrong Brinells about Soviet tanks? And if Soviet bias is not stupid enough for you? ;D

If you don't believe the test of American Aberdeen Proving Grounds, which one you believe? German? Soviet? UK? God? or yourself?  :o
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: nysä on 19-02-2016, 19:02:52
.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: zyssyxn on 20-02-2016, 05:02:37
 ;D
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: nysä on 20-02-2016, 16:02:54
.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: hitm4k3r on 20-02-2016, 23:02:48
Relax guys, we are checking the materials and discussing the issue. Consens so far is that the 85mm gun will most likely get a little buff to penetrate 100mm aswell as the PIV. Currently the 85mm AP shell is set to 90mm wich is indeed a bit weak compared to AP of the KWK40/L48 wich penetrates 100mm. That is the reason why the PIV will get through the Tiger I front hull and turret, where the material is set to 100mm (not the mantlet btw) and the T34/85 not. But keep in mind that the 85mm shell has a higher damage compared to the 75mm shell allready, so once it penetrates it will deal more damage. But please don't expect huge differences. Engaging a Tiger or a Panther from the front is still suicidal, especialy when the driver of those tanks knows how to use them.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/75-mm.asp

This is our reference and IIRC the penetration values in FH2 are standardized to the 500m values as we can't take all characteristics of the shells over different distances into account.

About accuracy: it is not only about the gun itself, nor about magnification. There are many factors involved, one of the most important ones being the calibration of the optics together with the accuracy of the gun itself.

Anyway, I hope this clears some stuff up and thanks for the feedback. :)
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: kingtiger1891 on 21-02-2016, 00:02:28
Out of my limited fh2.5 experience I did managed to shoot a stug at fog distance of Arad with the 85mm APCR, and surprisingly it's not an one-shot kill. I don't know if it's the long distance tank fight still screwed up or the 85mm gun is indeed too weak.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: hitm4k3r on 21-02-2016, 01:02:35
I see no issues with the APCR. Always remember: when fighting at fog distance, you will most likely never know wich pixel of the tank you hit. There is a very high chance that it will get reflected, or deflected so that the dealt damage gets reduced by the angle mod. I tried front 1s1k against the StuG and the PIV with APCR from different distances and angles and managed to do so. The issue we are discussing here, is the too weak performance of the nomral 85mm AP shell and not the APCR 85mm.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: kingtiger1891 on 21-02-2016, 08:02:33
The issue we are discussing here, is the too weak performance of the nomral 85mm AP shell and not the APCR 85mm.
I know, just trying to say the 85mm seem to have weaker fire power than expected, both AP and APCR. Not suggesting it should be otherwise, but I think the Soviet need something to take the role of Firefly/M10, meaning 1s1k by hitting the Panther mantlet.
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: jan_kurator on 21-02-2016, 10:02:10
The issue we are discussing here, is the too weak performance of the nomral 85mm AP shell and not the APCR 85mm.
...I think the Soviet need something to take the role of Firefly/M10, meaning 1s1k by hitting the Panther mantlet.
they have SU152 for that role
Title: Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
Post by: Oberst on 21-02-2016, 10:02:55
Out of my limited fh2.5 experience I did managed to shoot a stug at fog distance of Arad with the 85mm APCR, and surprisingly it's not an one-shot kill. I don't know if it's the long distance tank fight still screwed up or the 85mm gun is indeed too weak.

My adbive in that case, in particular when fighting with the t34/76, use HE shells. It proved effective for me. With russian guns, HE shells are always an option and they deal quite a lot more damage than german ones.