ATG/AAA/etc, No Optics?

[NUTTERNAME]

I can't believe I never noticed that antitank guns/AAA/etc. do not model optics damage? It seems odd that AFV have this 'modeled' (ahem) but ATG can sit out in the open and have HE etc. blasting them to no end?

In a ongoing battle, I had to systematically KO a bunch of Soviet 85mm AA guns, 37mm AA and 57mm ATG. My Tigers were putting potholes all around the raised up 85mm AA guns that had no shields. The crews seemed to be chained to the guns and would not leave, and even under fire, a gunner would get up on his metal-tractor-seat and take shots at me.

The 88mm HE is a very powerful projectile. To give some basis, it weighs about 50% more than the much ballyhooed Sherman 75mm HE. I would say roughly 50% more metal and explosive.

Exposed guns like these AA weapons would be vulnerable to fragmentation KOing not only optics but also recoil systems/elevation systems/etc. gunshields really just protect the guns. Being on a raised platform AA weapon begs the question..."Are they brave or crazy?".

Has this been discussed at BF? I tried doing a search, but ended up reading some threads by Sublime instead.

 

[WBRP]

I thought that "optics" in the vehicle section referred to vision blocks, periscopes, etc. rather than the gun sight optics, which is covered by the weapon control item. Still, without looking, the latter is likely still not modelled for the towed units. Maybe they just fudged it and translate it into a Knock Out?

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I thought that "optics" in the vehicle section referred to vision blocks, periscopes, etc. rather than the gun sight optics, which is covered by the weapon control item. Still, without looking, the latter is likely still not modelled for the towed units. Maybe they just fudged it and translate it into a Knock Out?

The 3.0 manual gives little to no info.

I am not sure what the whole 'Optics/Spotting/Accuracy/Binoculars/Vision Block/etc.' relationships are. I am currently playing a game with an elite Tiger I that is unbuttoned and has 'orange' optics damage. He can't see much.

The guns are modeled as fully functional, destroyed or abandoned. The only 'soft' effects are crew suppression and casualties I suppose. Losing a leader with binoculars should hamper both the weapon's spotting as well as accuracy when firing. Losing a gunsight would make the weapon severely inaccurate but not useless.

But the apparent toughness of towed weapons to resist damage would be my main concern. To be honest, I am basing this mostly on older play. I haven't tested the latest patch. But to give an example, here is a Soviet AAA gun...

View attachment 48432

 

[Elvis]

I tried doing a search, but ended up reading some threads by Sublime instead.

Me too.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

You got time to read threads? Send me a turn you wanker.

 

[Elvis]

You got time to read threads? Send me a turn you wanker.

You actually owed me a turn. And I wish I had the game on my work computer.....especially on days like today.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I owed nuthin. I sented you 144, you now owed me 145.

I can't wait for your end-game desperation hijinx...hopefully, a Stuka shows up and I get to see your fleeing troops get bombed.

 

[mOBIUS]

The 3.0 manual gives little to no info.
I am not sure what the whole 'Optics/Spotting/Accuracy/Binoculars/Vision Block/etc.' relationships are.
View attachment 48432

This in a game that supposedly doesn't abstract things. ???

 

[Elvis]

This in a game that supposedly doesn't abstract things. ???

All games are abstractions. If you want complete reality, enlist.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

This in a game that supposedly doesn't abstract things. ???

I think that anal-retentiveness is a slippery-slope that battlefront swallowed. God, that sounded so dirty...

I am not sure if they spout off about "Design-for-effect" anymore? They make claims about every projectile being tracked, etc., but the end effects and other modeled game antics are not spelled out anywhere. Perhaps they feel that the game is better if not understood? Or, they will be brought to their knees by nosy-know-it-alls that want to correct everything after they have unleashed the product?

Anyway, an example of "Design-for-effect", that works (in my opinion), is taking data from studies and then using that to see if the game needs tweaking. An example is a report I read about US Armor crewmen casualties. While TC casualties were higher than most crewmen, it was not as the game seems to model. In the report, it was 57% for TC getting hurt vs. a low of something like 47% for some other crewmen (driver I think). Given that the game typically whacks TC with burp guns at 100 meters, we have a disconnect with reality. Mostly, from TC not being modeled as small targets, but also not having a suppression model that will have the TC drop down like they would once small arms start dinging off the armor.

Another datum in the report was that typically two guys got it once a tank got hit and the crew bolted. Usually one dead and the other wounded. Maybe BF gets this right. This is for US tanks. Soviet tank crewmen casualties may vary.

But the game has basically leveled-off as far as making any major leaps on the slippery-slopes. I am pretty sure there were tweaks and other things going on that were not announced on the last patch. Is it a conspiracy? Sloppy documentation? Faulty memories and distractions? Who knows. I see very little discussion in regards to the game and I am sure BF is just happy about that.

What was I talking about again? Oh yeah, Elvis...stop staring out the window...no customers are coming...Global Warming has them all sitting at home shopping on the internets...screw the boss...play CM and send me a turn! That's the ticket!

 

[NUTTERNAME]

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter1.htm

The HE 88 mm. shells tested were filled with amatol (43/57) and weighed approximately 22½ pounds. The external diameter was 88 mm. (approximately 3½ inches), and the average wall thickness was 0.60 inches. When fired against ground targets, a percussion or time fuze was employed. Two rounds were detonated in January 1943 (fig. 29). The rounds when empty weighed 19.17 and 20.37 pounds. For the first shell, 84.6 percent of fragments-1,488 pieces, 16.2 pounds-were recovered. For the second shell, there was a 78.6 percent recovery consisting of 1,543 fragments weighing 16 pounds. The number of fragments per pound in this experiment was not quite 95, one of

66

FIGURE 29.-Fragments recovered from a German 88 mm. high explosive shell.

the lowest ratios encountered so far. This finding is actually more apparent than real when one considers the low percent of recovery. The smaller fragments, which are many, were probably not recovered.

Other static detonation tests of the 88 mm. HE shell were conducted. The basic data included fragmentation results and the mean, minimum, and maximum velocities of fragments over the first 10 feet. From this basic data, the data shown in figure 30 were derived. The method of derivation was basically the same as that explained in the preceding section on mortar ammunition


88mm HE cutaway
View attachment 48446

Fragment recovery from 88mm HE static test
View attachment 48447

Charted velocities and distribution
View attachment 48448

 

[NUTTERNAME]

From the above data. I would say that a 88mm HE landing in your 'Action Spot' would have a high probability of destroying most weapons and incapacitating most troops such as the AAA gun that is shown above. Even if 'dug-in' or 'sand-bagged', the vulnerable gunner and loaders and optics and recoil mechanism, etc. are exposed and would be in a world of hurt. A 88mm HE landing in adjacent AS, that is to the left and right and directly 'in front' (between firer and target), would also have a good probability of taking out the crewmen and also damaging the gun. The AS behind the gun, where the fragmentation is actually minimal and consists of the rear base plate breaking up into lower velocity pieces, would still have great suppressive effect from the 2 pounds or so of high explosive. There would be probabilities at greater ranges, of course, but I am mostly pointing out that the game is showing in its graphics craters that actually are in the AS these guns are in and the crew keeps fighting and the gun seems operational. I call BS on that.

Supposedly, the last patch did something with fragmentation modeling. But, again, I don't see much information beyond the blurb that comes with the patch announcement. I don't even know if the game models fragmentation trajectories and such.

 

[wengart]

I don't think that they deal with any soft damage to towed weapons. I'm sure if you asked they would say it is abstracted into the gun being knocked out. However, I tend to agree with you that towed weapons are too resilient to damage to components.

Personally I suspect that there is an issue with how they coded them. Such that, if they gave towed weapons components to damage they would become "vehicles" rather than crew served weapons.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I don't think that they deal with any soft damage to towed weapons. I'm sure if you asked they would say it is abstracted into the gun being knocked out. However, I tend to agree with you that towed weapons are too resilient to damage to components.

Personally I suspect that there is an issue with how they coded them. Such that, if they gave towed weapons components to damage they would become "vehicles" rather than crew served weapons.

I find it amazing that AFV get the TC whacked and the effects it has, compared to guns without shields fighting to the last man. Steve said something mind-blowingly preposterous about TC getting whacked being a mathematical certainty. In his reasoning, the TC never move. Even squirrels move.

Anyway, antitank guns often had a iron-sight backup if the telescopic sight got damaged. I know the PAK 38 had one. It would make long range shooting an iterative affair, but the weapon would still be of some use at shorter ranges. Especially if high velocity. I am pretty sure that AFV did not have something like this. Some German tanks had a iron-sight welded on the cupola so the TC could at least get things pointed in the right direction.

As far as AFV gun sights being damaged, many are actually internalized. While they are used through a peep hole, they are not sticking out of the vehicle (typically). Something like a sherman, which uses a strait through sight, actually moves the gunsight with the gun. Many German gunsights were articulated, which means the gunners head does not have to move as the gun is raised or depressed. It is basically fixed and the end piece is hinged. How they are actually attached to the moving element could determine its vulnerability. Something like a Panther mantlet taking hits might transfer the energy to the articulated connection.

An example of a Firefly...
View attachment 48480View attachment 48481

Note that the mantlet is attached via 6 screws. Basically, hits on the mantlet are directly transferred to the gun's trunnions itself. I assume the gun tube slides back of course. The optics appear on the left and the MG is on the right (as viewed in the pictures). The gunsight almost certainly moves in a vertical arc and the opening has to accommodate this. There appears to be some form of protective glass and the sight itself would be behind this.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Many of the German SP and other non-turreted AFV used a periscopic gun sight. Mechanically, they are fixed to the gun cradle. While they seem vulnerable (they stick out the roof), they evidently had a means to have spare parts handy. The large telescopic sights are rather bulky to say the least (Panther gunsight is something like 50 pounds). I would imagine that any changing of parts would void the 'zero' till subsequent shots are fired.

View attachment 48490

Clean looking interior shot...

View attachment 48491

...another...

View attachment 48492

 

[NUTTERNAME]

As an example of an articulated gun sight, lets look at the Panther. Here is the Mantlet...

View attachment 48525

...Note the two optics holes. This was an earlier casting and the first Panthers (D) actually used a binocular articulating gun sight similar to the Tiger I early optics. An important mechanical note is that the articulating element was NOT attached to the mantlet. The mantlet shows the 4 mounting holes for the attachment to the carriage.

View attachment 48526

Here we see the carriage that the gun, mantlet, and gun sight attach to. On either side of the carriage are the trunnions. I believe the attachment point for the articulating element of the gun sight are the three holes on the bottom of the carriage. There actually is a shelf that bolts in this space...

View attachment 48527

...This above picture shows a later mantlet (one hole) bolted onto the panther.

View attachment 48528

The above picture shows just how large and long these articulating sights are.

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=37575

Above link shows that the Soviets used articulated sights in the T34/85.

Installed sight. Note the triangular attachment piece that is actually on the turret roof.

View attachment 48529

 

[mOBIUS]

So I take it that in their modern game the thermal sights of the M-1 come apart like a summer squash with the slightest jolt? I mean electronics have to be more delicate than steel and glass.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

So I take it that in their modern game the thermal sights of the M-1 come apart like a summer squash with the slightest jolt? I mean electronics have to be more delicate than steel and glass.

Well, this screenshot from the manual shows what damage they do track. How they divine how that occurs is a big question...

View attachment 48530

...there must be more 'damage items' since simple things like tracks are not listed. I believe that items that are damaged jump to the top of the list.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

So I take it that in their modern game the thermal sights of the M-1 come apart like a summer squash with the slightest jolt? I mean electronics have to be more delicate than steel and glass.

I suppose that given the use of the M1 series of tanks in recent conflicts, there might actually be some data as far as small arms/AAA/RPG/IED/etc. lethality on the tank's sensors etc. They certainly have been upgraded over the years.

But, compared to WWII electronics, modern electronics certainly are more survivable. Radios, for instance, were tube based technology back then and there is ample evidence that they were not only knocked out but also came apart under high explosive attack on AFV. Solid state devices, on conformal coated circuit boards, and mounted on isolation mounts, etc. can be made fairly robust. The whole package is smaller now and can be mounted within the protective confines of the AFV.

But exposed sensors, being exposed, might be degraded or destroyed. I believe the gunner has a backup sight and also the TC has (on the upgraded versions) another sight/control himself.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

This model shows the approach that the Tiger II designers went with. namely, narrow trunnions, carriage mounted to the turret 'floor', Articulated gun sight that lines up with a turret frontal armor vision hole. Basically, hits on the 'gun mount' (mantlet) are isolated from the gun sight.

View attachment 48580View attachment 48588

The peep hole allows for depression and elevation. I doubt many strait through telescopes could do this without straining the gunner's neck...