Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'm talking about 2.45 system.From the detail released in this thread it's not a complete fix at all, more of a slight compromise to the 2.45 arcade crap. Sorry devs, I don't want to discourage you but personally I won't come back to FH2 as long as it's indulged in this "tank fight last longer" fantasy. And I doubt any of those who left in 2.45 would do.
I hope it will be completely fixed with this new update.
I think the margin where you can 1S1K the Sherman to it's side armor is somewhere at 400m or a bit more.400m can be called long distance but I'm sure I did shots longer than that from time to time, since it's just 2/3 the fog distance in some maps. And considering the panther gun vs sherman side is a very extreme case (IRL 124mm@500m versus 38-45mm sherman side), I do think the new settings are still conservative, maybe the minimum damage should be enhanced.
PzV: 75mmL70; mat 330, damage 125, mindamage 49.Am I to understand that Sherman would 100% survive one panther side hit beyond a bit more than 300m? And this is the basic M4A1, which means the A3, A4 would be more resistent.
M4A1 mid: 1000 hp, front 80mm mat 130, side 60mm mat 128
Damagemod 330 130: 9.75
Damagemod 330 128: 12.75
Damage at 0m: 1219 hp to front, 1594 hp to side.
Damage at 300m: 848 hp to front, 1109 hp to side.
Damage at 600m: 478 hp to front, 625 hp to side.
Once again, as much as I appreciate all of this work, I feel the biggest problem of 2.45 was the damage over distance modifier, and that collision meshes didn't need everything stripped down...I kinda feel the same here. What was changed from 2.4 to 2.45 is the damage modifier and therefore the problem comes from the damage modifier. I just hope the devs would drop the "tank fight should last longer" obssession which turns FH to vanilla BF style.
First you claim a shell would magically turn on impact to be more effective against slopped armor, now you tell me that if it doesn't it should turn toward the steel plate on exit ?
So what do you want to explain with this ? The slight curve at the exit point on left ? The basic balance of forces easily explains this, you don't need any other theory. And anyway it's the bloody EXIT point, who cares about the way the round exits, your point is all about it should penetrate with a turning round !My point is the shell travels less distance than what trigonometric calculation would give. And I don't think I need to write an article to explain that's what happened in the photo. And for the "positive normalization"? The curve should bend to the opposite side if that's the case.
That's the first time I've ever heard about this theory.A "skilled physicist" who first time heard (I'm not saying agree) this theory? Hmm...
This smoky theory may seem obvious to you, but for any skilled physicist it is obviously plain bullshit.
And he uses quote marks ... He's not meaning "your" normalization, he's meaning an effect that would make penetration easier with negative values, and harder with positive value. Did you read the bloody chart ?Ok, so a higher value of normalization means harder to penetrate, right?
“normalization” gets higher values with a greater shell diameter (that means more mass per mm²).Greater shell diameter makes it harder to penetrate.
In other words: Small calibers are worse against sloped armor.Small calibres are even harder.........
And again, as I told you previously if you read what I wrote, you don't need much observation sense to see that your picture doesn't prove anything.I don't prove it, what happens is happened and is clearly shown on the photo. I brought up shell normalization because that's a one theory to explain this phenomenon. You have your own explaination to it on the other thread, fine, but does it make a difference? Isn't the armor plate of the vehicles have the same shape of cross section as the plate in the photo I post? It would make a difference if it's a triangular cross section.
You didn't understand the article I think. Yes, he says that larger calibers are more effective than smaller ones, but NOT that the deflection effect doesn't exist with bigger shells.
In other words, there's an actual effect INCREASING the armor effectiveness with sharp slopes whatever the caliber (a positive one, the OPPOSITE of your normalization theory), BUT this effect decreases with shell size.
“normalization” gets higher values with a greater shell diameter (that means more mass per mm²). In other words: Small calibers are worse against sloped armor.
One site, this one, quite clearly states that real world normalisation values would be positive
“normalization” gets higher values with a greater shell diameter (that means more mass per mm²). In other words: Small calibers are worse against sloped armor.
I only get pages referring to World of Tanks. One site, this one
That's elementary mechanics, the shell will bounce with very low angles, even if it's only a 10mm thick plate.Remined me of an old joke: If a paper is sloped to 0.000000000001 degree, it can withstand any AP shell in any calibre...
I guess asking for tank combat to be close to reality makes me an axis fanboy. That's where this mod went wrong, tweaking tank combat so CoD kids could charge into combat and not cry when they got smoked with one shot.
