NUTTERNAME
Member
There are some quirky shot placements and penetrations going on in the game. Some shots are hitting 'top rear hull' and such with little to no LOS to the areas hit. Also, hits at extremely low angles are penetrating.
An example is a panther that was hit and KO'd. I examined the 'hit decal' and saw it was on the RO hatch. I figured it to be a ricochet off the mantlet (possible) but there was no decal on the mantlet. Several viewings showed it was indeed a very low angle hit on the hatch. I checked the panther's terrain and it was at such a slight 'forward slope' that I figured it to be 10-15 degrees(max). The gun was even lower down 'the valley'. This odd event was made stranger since the hatch opened and the RO bailed out!
It seems the penetration modeling is not taking ricochet factoring into account. A major factor in creating ricochets is the angle (of course) and the relationship between the shape of the AP rounds nose and the 'landing' of the projectile on it's 'side' (along the highly sloped armor) and the lack of the nose of the AP projectile having the chance to 'dig in'. In other words, it slides. A rule of thumb for creating ricochets is 20 degrees or less of sloped armor induces ricochets. Sherman tankers knew this and some of the turret field expedient armor add-ons used this to effect.
I see a gawd-awful thread at BF discussing a similar problem with the Panzer IV hull being penetrated by AP in a similar manner. The usual types are trying to hammer square pegs in round holes using 'maths' to create the illusion of 'groginess'. Not one person has the sense to notice that there is very little photographic evidence of Panzer IV's being penetrated on this highly sloped area. Also, the US Army documentation of these German AFV being vulnerable to AP rounds from 37mm, 57mm, 75mm, etc., show that area under discussion as being non-vulnerable. There are even nice pictures there with shady areas to demonstrate this. I can dig this up.
I would certainly like Mobius to comment since he seems to be here enough. That is, if he is not afraid to show up on one of MD's notorious 'lists'...?
An example is a panther that was hit and KO'd. I examined the 'hit decal' and saw it was on the RO hatch. I figured it to be a ricochet off the mantlet (possible) but there was no decal on the mantlet. Several viewings showed it was indeed a very low angle hit on the hatch. I checked the panther's terrain and it was at such a slight 'forward slope' that I figured it to be 10-15 degrees(max). The gun was even lower down 'the valley'. This odd event was made stranger since the hatch opened and the RO bailed out!
It seems the penetration modeling is not taking ricochet factoring into account. A major factor in creating ricochets is the angle (of course) and the relationship between the shape of the AP rounds nose and the 'landing' of the projectile on it's 'side' (along the highly sloped armor) and the lack of the nose of the AP projectile having the chance to 'dig in'. In other words, it slides. A rule of thumb for creating ricochets is 20 degrees or less of sloped armor induces ricochets. Sherman tankers knew this and some of the turret field expedient armor add-ons used this to effect.
I see a gawd-awful thread at BF discussing a similar problem with the Panzer IV hull being penetrated by AP in a similar manner. The usual types are trying to hammer square pegs in round holes using 'maths' to create the illusion of 'groginess'. Not one person has the sense to notice that there is very little photographic evidence of Panzer IV's being penetrated on this highly sloped area. Also, the US Army documentation of these German AFV being vulnerable to AP rounds from 37mm, 57mm, 75mm, etc., show that area under discussion as being non-vulnerable. There are even nice pictures there with shady areas to demonstrate this. I can dig this up.
I would certainly like Mobius to comment since he seems to be here enough. That is, if he is not afraid to show up on one of MD's notorious 'lists'...?