Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> Research >> General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST - 6/4/2019 4:21:47 PM   
Tamas

 

Posts: 963
Joined: 1/7/2001
Status: offline
Hi Everyone,


We thought some of you might enjoy helping the team, and the community in general, researching equipment and OoB information for the various armies the game has not yet covered. Our hope is that this will help both the development team, as well as modders to add new content more quickly, as finding information in sufficient details is usually the biggest challenge for this period, especially since the best sources are always in the native language of the armed force in question.


To state the obvious: we have opened this subforum for publicly available information only. Make sure you do not post any classified information. If you post any equipment data or information, we would appreciate if you included the source, but ultimately it is your responsibility to not share anything you are not supposed to.



First of all an important disclaimer: a country/region receiving a sub-forum here does not guarantee that it will be included in a future expansion for the game. Quite simply, we have not planned long enough to know when -if at all- a given country would see official treatment. On the other hand, if anybody wants to create a mod using information/opinion contributed here on the forum, they are of course free to do so.


Now for some details on how we envision this forum working.

For each country/region subforum we will link a Google Sheet with two tabs: the Faction Sheet and the Ammunition Sheet. There is also an Armour Penetration Calculator that you should use if you want to get the in-game parameters for given gun/ammo attributes. If you think an equipment/ammo type is missing, or has wrong suggestions, either comment in its own separate thread, or open a new one if none exists. After an initial testing period of the concept, we would be happy to find a forum member for each of the subforums to be given access to update numbers, once he judges the arguments sufficient for them. The development team can update/overrule these of course.

The 3 sheets are as follows:

Faction sheet
This is where vast majority of work is done. It is substantially a unit list of a given faction. In the Armored Brigade official database we don’t use prototypes, trial vehicles or systems or those which saw service in extremely limited numbers (less than 10, for example, unless justified by importance or proven potential availability in wartime). Preferred sources are archival material, books that are based on such data, like trials, after-action reports, statistics, and technical manuals. Latter are preferred. Sometimes such material is not available, so it is necessary to analyse declassified intelligence reports, open-source data, photographs, as to rely on anecdotal evidence etc. In such cases discussion is encouraged as is conservative approach to assumptions that needs to be labeled as such.

Unit name, year of introduction and withdraw from service is quite self explanatory. Names can be localized, but a certain consistency patterns with names used in same and other factions in game should be maintained, as well familiarity of users with such names (e.g. M18 AT Destroyer is better than Yugoslav local designation SO-76 etc.).

Transfer into reserve units and similar variations that may alter availability should be noted in “Formation and other service usage notes” as well other short notes and comments that might be useful or interesting to the database creator (e.g. minor modifications or modernizations, limited numbers issued, intended role or particular units using them exclusively). Major modernizations should be listed as separate units (e.g. T-62 model 1975 etc.). In case of infantry this tab is used to note what weapon system is used by, for example, HMG or Mortar team (e.g. M2 Light Mortar). For aircraft this is where the most common combat loadout is noted, or the intended role.

Ammo notes regard particular ammo load, or round introduced, for example new AP or HEAT shell being distributed in a particular year. In case of aircraft it is usually a note on a new bomb or missile being introduced, or number of hardpoints. You will note that in case of infantry this field is used to designate how many men are in the squad (question of practicity).

Particular equipment notes (including for sprites) regard information that can be used both by the database creator (e.g. no IR lights, stabilization) as by the sprite maker, such is added or removed machine guns, stowage, LRFs, smoke grenade launchers, camouflage etc.
In case of infantry this field is used to sign how many men are used to move the weapon (in order to reduce workload, static sprites are used instead of animations when possible, so no need to make 2-men moving a gun sprite if minimum needed is 3-men).

Miscellaneous notes and commentary regards any useful information that doesn’t fit previous fields (e.g. should a given unit have a gunner, or a turret, or if given unit is based on unit already in game but listed under a different name etc.).

Public discussion on forum is also highly encouraged (actually necessary) particularly so if data presented doesn’t fit the above sheet (for example, presentation of infantry company organizations, specific AFVs development history and etc.).

Ammunition sheet
This is a list of ammunition rounds and missiles used by units of a specific faction. Listed are calibre (should be ordered according to this and category, like shells and missiles), round historical designation, historically accurate gun name that use it, shell type, year of introduction, minimal range (for example most ATGM missiles have a “dead-zone”) , maximum range (maximum range at which shell is effective when visually aimed, in case of direct fire rounds), accuracyBase (accuracy at muzzle, usually 90% but can be lower on some specific weapons), accuracyRange (point where accuracy reaches half of original value, used to adjust accuracy over different distances), softDamageRange (usually 0, but some rounds like cannister lose lethality over range), AP_Damage (penetration at muzzle, and by norm a comment should be left on quoted penetration from a trusted source), AP_DamageRange (refer to Armour Penetration Calculator section), muzzle velocity of the shell or missile speed, and notes (usually vehicle using it, but also anything else of interest).

Armour Penetration Calculator
As the name already implies, this sheet is our algorithm used to calculate armor penetration over range. Only fields to be touched are B1 and D1 (Penetration and Penetration Range respectively). Penetration value is initial penetration at muzzle, at 0°, and playing out with range values with give you various penetration values over different distances. Those ranges are to be compared with historical penetration data (usually given at 500m, 1000m, 2500m etc.) until you get as realistic values as possible. APFSDS tend to keep penetration over range, while older shell types as APC or APDS tend to lose it more. HEAT and HEP ammo maintain penetration over range so PenRange is 0m.

N.B. keep in mind that archival data often give penetration at 30° or 60°. Penetration values and estimates sometimes cannot be directly compared if they don't include some other data as target obliquity or type, penetration criteria, and can be significantly altered even by "minor" parameters as propellant temperature, target hardness, etc.
Also, different criteria for armor perforation are used by different nations. For example, Soviet criteria for calculating the penetration limit of projectiles is V80, meaning that the expected consistency of achieving full armor perforation must be 80%. This means, that at least 80% of all projectiles of a certain type must achieve that standard in order to have a certified penetration. A hit is declared as full penetration only when 80% of the shell mass has passed through the armor (notice the word mass, it means that the penetration is achieved even if the shell splinters to pieces within the armor). Overall, Soviet standards were not only stricter, but the steel they used for targets was sometimes of a greater hardness than NATO targets, hence the given penetration data of Soviet rounds may be an under-representation of the actual achievable penetration of these shells using a different criteria.
In comparison, complete penetration according to the American methodology is acquired, whenever a shell punctures the armor enough for light to shine through, once the shell is removed. In other words, it’s enough for the shell to have just a tip inside the armor and you have achieved a complete penetrating hit. On top of that, only 50% of the projectiles are required to penetrate. Hence, it is clear that values are not directly comparable, and strict care needs to be taken to have consistent and comparable values across all units and factions in the database. Comparative field trials of different rounds are always a welcome addition because they are excellent for side-to-side performance comparison of different rounds.

Therefore, it is recommended to use the calculator and put the accuracyRange and AP_Damage values in Ammunition sheet if possibly you have a certain scientific knowledge on penetration vs. armor dynamics. Public discussion is always welcome and encouraged.

You can download a copy of the Calculator from THIS LINK



To see all of this in practice, have a look at the YUGOSLAVIA SHEET


< Message edited by Tamas -- 6/7/2019 8:47:24 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST - 6/6/2019 9:10:44 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 1743
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: online
Very interesting ... Even though you are calling for "publicly available information only", there is tremendous amount of Intelligent Property Rights you could be infringing on and therefore liable for. I would suggest you send this entire idea back to your lawyers before you get really screwed.

Kevin

_____________________________

“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
― Alfred Thayer Mahan


(in reply to Tamas)
Post #: 2
RE: General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST - 6/7/2019 9:08:17 AM   
Tamas

 

Posts: 963
Joined: 1/7/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkins

Very interesting ... Even though you are calling for "publicly available information only", there is tremendous amount of Intelligent Property Rights you could be infringing on and therefore liable for. I would suggest you send this entire idea back to your lawyers before you get really screwed.

Kevin


The only ones who could be doing any infringing here are the persons posting the information. That's why I though I'd put a reminder up.

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 3
RE: General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST - 6/7/2019 9:58:27 AM   
IainMcNeil


Posts: 2735
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: London
Status: offline
If the information is public domain, then there are no IPR rights on the values so no legal issues here. There can be IPR if you combine it in to a database with a pile of stats so people cant use your DB without permission, but you if you pull the info from a public source like the specs page of a weapon then there is no IPR there. Its teh bundling it together in to a useful format that creates the value and the IPR.

So yes if you found someone had created a DB with what they say is open source info you couldn't just use it without their permission. But if you went to the sources and compiled the same database yourself and could show you did so with e.g. links to the sources there is no IPR issue. So basically don't steal someone else's research :)

_____________________________

Iain McNeil
Director
Matrix Games

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 4
RE: General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST - 6/17/2019 3:10:14 AM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 720
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tamas
Also, different criteria for armor perforation are used by different nations. For example, Soviet criteria for calculating the penetration limit of projectiles is V80, meaning that the expected consistency of achieving full armor perforation must be 80%. This means, that at least 80% of all projectiles of a certain type must achieve that standard in order to have a certified penetration. A hit is declared as full penetration only when 80% of the shell mass has passed through the armor (notice the word mass, it means that the penetration is achieved even if the shell splinters to pieces within the armor). Overall, Soviet standards were not only stricter, but the steel they used for targets was sometimes of a greater hardness than NATO targets, hence the given penetration data of Soviet rounds may be an under-representation of the actual achievable penetration of these shells using a different criteria.
In comparison, complete penetration according to the American methodology is acquired, whenever a shell punctures the armor enough for light to shine through, once the shell is removed. In other words, it’s enough for the shell to have just a tip inside the armor and you have achieved a complete penetrating hit. On top of that, only 50% of the projectiles are required to penetrate. Hence, it is clear that values are not directly comparable, and strict care needs to be taken to have consistent and comparable values across all units and factions in the database. Comparative field trials of different rounds are always a welcome addition because they are excellent for side-to-side performance comparison of different rounds.


I remember I discussed this with Nikolas in Beta forum. I can't recall all the details, but I remember I was not convinced in those criteria. While I respect your opinion, I think I'm still somewhat dubious about those claims.

1) About V80 criteria: I know this was used during WW2 and Korean war for Soviet tanks. But was this V80 criteria used up to cold war era for Red army? Is this the assumption? or is this the fact based on source? If there is a source, can you share to us?

2) About soviet target and NATO target:
quote:


steel they used for targets was sometimes of a greater hardness than NATO targets

Could you share a source for this claim?
From opened source I have:
https://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/Military_Tech/TAS_107/Tank_Ammo_Sec_107_JUN-1980.htm
quote:


The requirement to defeat a heavy, monolithic target at nominal ranges had evolved into a requirement to defeat a wide spectrum of NATO standard targets including a heavy triple spaced array, and hints of the development of much more complex and difficult target descriptions loomed on the horizon.

Also, in table 7 of this report, it is known that army tested "Modern targets" which is unclassified in this report. In addition, According to Ogorkiewicz, Richard M.: Technology of Tanks:
quote:


During the 1960s the problem of cracking could be overcome and high hardness armor was used on light armored vehicles mostly. Only in 1980s the technology was suitable to produce dual hardness steel thick enough for main battle tanks.

HHS was widely used from 1960s and adapted to MBTs in 1980s in US.
Another test report of HHS, table 1 shows various types of HHS for penetration testing. This 1992, but reference of this report indicates the usage of HHS in testing since 1980s: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a257674.pdf

Those resources should be enough that US also used quite heavy target for penetration testing. May I ask the standard hardness for the Soviet penetration test and the sources, and how do you claim soviet criteria is more strict?

3) US armor penetration judgement criteria / standard
quote:


In comparison, complete penetration according to the American methodology is acquired, whenever a shell punctures the armor enough for light to shine through, once the shell is removed. In other words, it’s enough for the shell to have just a tip inside the armor and you have achieved a complete penetrating hit. On top of that, only 50% of the projectiles are required to penetrate.

It is true US army didn't used penetrator mass. But the claim of "punctures the armor enough for light to shine through" seems not correct.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a236191.pdf
In this report:
1) Diameter of entry hole and exit hole are measured and used to define penetration. (figure 3)
2) Penetration depth and long rod length, and density of penetrator and target are used to characterize the max. limkit penetration performance of long rod. (equation 2)
3) If fails to penetrate, penetrating channel profiles are analyzed and hole diameter per depth was used. (figure 5)
This is 1991 paper, but references used in this paper indicates that the same criteria and measurements were performed in 1980s experiments.
May I ask the source of your claim about US army penetration decision?

< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 6/17/2019 3:23:14 AM >

(in reply to Tamas)
Post #: 5
RE: General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST - 6/17/2019 3:33:00 PM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 344
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
exsonic01, it was taken as an example, and it is particularly valid for older rounds. It is sufficient to look at performance test of the same gun (lets say 122mm D-25T), where US results are significant higher than Soviet tests. It is very important to know what test plate was here (Brinell hardness) and what a criteria was, if you want to compare them vis-à-vis.

Modern rounds are a different story, as I mentioned on beta forum, using steel equivalency is a fairly inefficient way of presenting armor, as the interaction between each armor type and penetrator type are unique, and trying to shoehorn the provided protection into one single value against all different types of APFSDS ammo is flawed. However, it is obvious that we war-gaming here and we have dozens of advanced tank variants and it is simply impossible to model them that accurately in a game such is Armored Brigade.

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 6
RE: General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST - 6/17/2019 4:31:37 PM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 720
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS
exsonic01, it was taken as an example, and it is particularly valid for older rounds. It is sufficient to look at performance test of the same gun (lets say 122mm D-25T), where US results are significant higher than Soviet tests. It is very important to know what test plate was here (Brinell hardness) and what a criteria was, if you want to compare them vis-à-vis.

You mean, US tests overestimates the penetration performance for same gun and same shell, over Soviet results? And is this the reason why you mentioned about test condition? But still, it is not sure that difference is coming from test condition only, and not sure which faction's testing was more "authentic". I know Russian estimation on M829 ~ M829A3 are more weaker than US estimation, but there can be so many reasons other than hardness of test plate or etc... So I still wish if you could share sources. Because I also wish to check those criteria and hardness levels and etc.

From what I read, it seems HHS is widely used during 80s testing for US army, and even since 60s US army used HHS. Well, my sources are for 80s~90s, so I agree that there might be great difference for 60s~70s. So it would be great if you could share your sources for those, I'm also curious about the reason behind the test condition and hardness and etc...

quote:


Modern rounds are a different story, as I mentioned on beta forum, using steel equivalency is a fairly inefficient way of presenting armor, as the interaction between each armor type and penetrator type are unique, and trying to shoehorn the provided protection into one single value against all different types of APFSDS ammo is flawed. However, it is obvious that we war-gaming here and we have dozens of advanced tank variants and it is simply impossible to model them that accurately in a game such is Armored Brigade.

I agree using RHS or RHAe as one unified criteria to represents defensive performance and penetration performance is not correct or at least not enough, because many mid/late cold war tanks used various layered armors. I guess other games also are trying their own way to represents armor, so this should be fine.

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 7
RE: General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST - 6/17/2019 5:26:47 PM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 344
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
Russian estimation on M829 are lower because I am not sure if they ever live-tested it officially. On the other hand US did test 122mm, and since their criteria was 5/10 penetrating hits on a given plate thickness, and Soviet was 8/10, they got some 30-40mm better results in Aberdeen (going from memory here). Both results are technically correct, but issue is when inexperienced modder takes those charts and directly compare them with, lets say German penetration chart on 88mm gun L/71, it turns out 122mm D-25T is equally or better performing, which is very likely untrue.

Use of HHS already goes into the realm of composite armor which usually needs to be analysed case by case, however when speaking about monolithic steel armour it did had a role. Some of the early Pattons used 220 BHN steel, while Soviets used mostly 270 BHN, but some of the tests on both sides commonly used 300 BHN (I have seen some Soviet tests with 440 BHN plates, but I cannot remember the reasoning behind). Although differences are likely in single digit percentages, sometimes it explained some unexpected anomalies as seen in live fire testings.

I am just giving some broad examples here, we can call it form of a cautionary advice for those who are getting into this for the first time.

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 8
RE: General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST - 6/17/2019 5:58:13 PM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 720
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS
Russian estimation on M829 are lower because I am not sure if they ever live-tested it officially. On the other hand US did test 122mm, and since their criteria was 5/10 penetrating hits on a given plate thickness, and Soviet was 8/10, they got some 30-40mm better results in Aberdeen (going from memory here). Both results are technically correct, but issue is when inexperienced modder takes those charts and directly compare them with, lets say German penetration chart on 88mm gun L/71, it turns out 122mm D-25T is equally or better performing, which is very likely untrue.

Use of HHS already goes into the realm of composite armor which usually needs to be analysed case by case, however when speaking about monolithic steel armour it did had a role. Some of the early Pattons used 220 BHN steel, while Soviets used mostly 270 BHN, but some of the tests on both sides commonly used 300 BHN (I have seen some Soviet tests with 440 BHN plates, but I cannot remember the reasoning behind). Although differences are likely in single digit percentages, sometimes it explained some unexpected anomalies as seen in live fire testings.

I am just giving some broad examples here, we can call it form of a cautionary advice for those who are getting into this for the first time.

OK, I got that, I think your references (for both hardness and test conditions) are for WW2 and covers early cold war era, and I agree that things might be very different from what I'm reading for 80s and 90s. We were talking very different region. Now I understand you commented those as a form of example. I got that too.

But it would be great if you add 'for early cold war' or any time frame information for those examples. Because it seems that things are fairly different when it comes to 1980s and 3rd gen armors came to the playground (and some variants of T-64 and T-72 during 70s), and some other people might be confused your terms with modern armor, like I did here.



< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 6/17/2019 5:59:12 PM >

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> Research >> General Information on the Research forum - READ FIRST Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.133