Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

German Heavy Pz Bn Question

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> German Heavy Pz Bn Question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/30/2021 4:02:46 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
I have noticed in my game that the German Heavy Pz Bn seem to NOT be rated as Elite. Is this correct? Is so why is that? Based on my readings, these units were maned my experienced panzer troops with previous combat experience for the most part.

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"
Post #: 1
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/30/2021 4:48:57 PM   
battlefield91

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 2/17/2015
Status: offline
Their Morale is on par with the Großdeutschland and your Elite SS-Divisions.

(in reply to Zemke)
Post #: 2
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/30/2021 5:06:39 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7837
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
In GC41 most should be SS-Elite (SS units) or Axis Elite (Heer units). There are some very latewar adhoc formations without Elite status

(in reply to battlefield91)
Post #: 3
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/30/2021 7:46:05 PM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 3993
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
Why aren't they elite units? Because they were experienced, yes. Elite? Not all of them certainly.

Performance fluctuated widely among the Heer heavy tank battalions. The SS units performed fairly well but others were so-so or not so good. Considering the resources consumed in equipping these units, not all would be deemed successful. We can look at the 22nd Panzer Division as an example. In 1942 their main tank was the Czech Pz-38t/e. The division got mismanaged by General Heim at Stalingrad, got sent off in the wrong direction and ultimately was so thoroughly wrecked by March 1943 that OKH took the 22nd off their OOB in April. Some of the surviving tank crews went on to man the 509th Heavy Tank Battalion later that year where their performance was ok. You can look up each battalion's success on wiki. Some examples:

504th- 109 lost 250 destroyed
506th- 179 lost 400 destroyed
508th - 78 lost 100 destroyed


A couple on the other hand were very good. These tended to be the early ones, where the corresponding enemy equipment was pretty badly mismatched.

502nd- 107 lost 1,400 destroyed
503rd- 252 lost 1,700 destroyed




(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 4
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/30/2021 11:20:08 PM   
Great_Ajax


Posts: 4740
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Alabama, USA
Status: offline
Which units are not designated as elite? I just looked through the list for the 41 campaign and found only a couple that weren't marked as elite because they were hastily raised depot/training units.

_____________________________

"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 5
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 8:31:32 AM   
cameron88

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 10/14/2020
Status: offline
Considering how terribly modeled and unrealistic Soviet armor values are in war in the East two, the least the developers could do is give the German heavy tank battalions elite status to compensate.

(in reply to Great_Ajax)
Post #: 6
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 11:11:03 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7837
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
see the dev answer above yours, they are all Elite except 2-3 latewar adhoc formations. If you see many more without Elite status it might be a bug.

(in reply to cameron88)
Post #: 7
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 2:34:24 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3045
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
In the old game I used to attach the weaker ones too very elite units like GD , that way their morale and experience quickly rises to a very high level. Without too many losses. I would though tend to agree with some of the posts in that surely these units would have been from more elite crews chosen to join them. OK for the very late stuff they must have been worse.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 8
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 4:41:40 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cameron88

Considering how terribly modeled and unrealistic Soviet armor values are in war in the East two, the least the developers could do is give the German heavy tank battalions elite status to compensate.


it would be really useful if you provided some evicence for this claim

_____________________________


(in reply to cameron88)
Post #: 9
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 4:43:41 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3448
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
Elite is still proportional to the National Morale (A flat +15 iirc). Ontop of +10 of being Motorized as unit.

Frankly I feel the 55-60 too little for Late War German baseline - but that is another tale.

Considering the 'Late War' abysmal National Morale of Germany, any 'ad hoc' formation composed of Veterans should be Elite by default simply because these veterans are probably '41-'42 survivors with lots of experience on their shoulders.

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 10
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 4:56:54 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37167
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: cameron88
Considering how terribly modeled and unrealistic Soviet armor values are in war in the East two, the least the developers could do is give the German heavy tank battalions elite status to compensate.


I'm curious, what is your evidence for this statement? It sounds like you were happy with the values in WITE1?

Regards,

- Erik



_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to cameron88)
Post #: 11
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 5:07:33 PM   
xhoel


Posts: 3017
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I'm curious, what is your evidence for this statement? It sounds like you were happy with the values in WITE1?

Regards,

- Erik




I think he might be refering to the number of Tank formations the Soviets can raise. I wouldnt call it terribly modeled and unrealistic, but there are a few issues there, which should be easy to fix.


Here are my thoughts on the Guard Tank Corps numbers: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5065682


_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 12
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 5:40:42 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
I am not sure they are Elite or not, if Ajax says they are then they are. I was just posting because when they showed up in my Reserve Pool, they were low Exp, and took forever to fill up with Tigers. Which is why I asked in the first place. I would agree that by and large, most of them should be rated Elite.

The one comment about the SS, frankly I would not put they at Elite status till towards the end of 41. They were very highly motivated, but not exactly the most competent. They got competent through the hard school of combat in the East, those that survived. High motivation does not translate into knowing what you are doing.

_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 13
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 10:10:39 PM   
cameron88

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 10/14/2020
Status: offline
I'm talking specifically about armor values, and how unhistorical some of them are. War in the East 1 had slightly to much soviet tank casualties when fighting German tank divisions, but war in the East 2 has far to little, which ends with an unrealistic amount of dead German tanks in tank battles, which i think is partly due to armor values after looking at them, as it truly feels like you are fighting with paper thin tanks in many engagements.

Now i don't know how exactly you are trying to model this games armor values, since there is no front turret or front hull value, just front armor. I would imagine you take a middle number in between turret and hull armor, but that doesn't stay true for every tank. With my limited knowledge of how combat works, i would recommend adding this in a future update, and as part of the combat phase give a % chance to hit either the front hull or front turret, and then it would do the calculations based on the armor and tank stats after, which you could then add specifically for both front hull and front turret.

For example the Tiger 1 had 102mm in the front hull, 120mm in the front turret, but it's 105mm in the game. The Panzer IV G/H has 72mm front armor, when it had 80mm hull and 55mm turret (+ spaced armor) in real life. British tanks like the Churchhill mark IV have 87mm front armor, when in real life they had 102mm hull front armor, and 89mm turret armor, the number ingame is less then either of these, let alone in the middle??

But after looking at 40+ tanks ingame, while these are minor problems depending on how you actually are trying to model front armor, the main issue is Soviet tanks, which by any model is absurdly high and unrealistic.

For example the KV-1 1941 has 125mm of front armor, and 100mm of side armor in game, while in real life it had 75mm of turret front and side armor, and 90mm of front hull armor... Should this not be 82mm front armor or something based on your German tank model of making the number in the middle of both turret and hull armor?

KV-1 1939 and 1940 also has to high armor values, with 100mm front armor instead of 75mm which they had historically in both the turret and hull.

The KV-8 Also has 125mm front and 100mm side armor ingame, when in real life it had the same as the KV1 1941, which was 75mm turret and 90mm front hull.

The KV-2 Has 93mm front armor ingame, when in real life it had 75mm front armor.

T28E Has wrong armor aswell, with 81mm front armor, when in real life it had 50-60mm front turret and hull armor.

The T-34s are also another problem, The 1940 and 1941 variants has 80mm front armor!!! Historically they had just 45mm front turret and hull armor, absolutely absurd that this almost has as much front armor as a Tiger 1. The 1943 variant has 89mm of front armor, which in real life had 70mm front turret armor, and 47mm of front hull armor.

Now at first glance i imagined you modeled it this way due to angling, but if that was the case other German tanks should have significantly more like the Panther with 120mm front turret armor, and 80mm front hull armor and MORE angling then these T-34 models, should have 170mm+ of front armor ingame by this same model? Because in the game it only has 122mm.

Shermans also have a little to much armor, with 89 front armor, even considering angling it should be <70mm, along with many other tanks as i literally looked at them all but cant be bothered to continue writing this.

It just doesnt make sense no matter how i look at it. It's like you modeled half of them one way, and then arbitrarily increased others over their historical amounts, even when considering angling, while ignoring other tanks at the same time. Maybe you updated certain tanks throughout development and never put it all back together and looked at it fully, but either way it needs a rework.

An update with both front hull and front turret armor being modeled would be a great solution to this, which would be much easier and realistic way to represent it as I've explained previously, and a visual angling value aswell.

(I had to edit this like 5 times piece by piece to get around not being able to post images/links in 7 days for new accounts, what is that?)

< Message edited by cameron88 -- 8/31/2021 10:20:53 PM >

(in reply to Zemke)
Post #: 14
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 10:17:41 PM   
GibsonPete


Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
"Considering how terribly modeled and unrealistic Soviet armor values are in war in the East two, the least the developers could do is give the German heavy tank battalions elite status to compensate."

I disagree with this. I hope you will be able to clear up the issue preventing your response. I am sure I am not the only one waiting.

(in reply to cameron88)
Post #: 15
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 8/31/2021 10:24:02 PM   
GibsonPete


Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
Reviewed your response and find it interesting. I believe you are focusing on a single aspect and the under the hood mechanics cover much more. Still your response is well thought out.

(in reply to GibsonPete)
Post #: 16
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/1/2021 7:40:17 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7837
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
The armor ratings also include effects from angled/rounded armor plates so horizontal thickness of the 45mm angled armor on the T-34 is close to the 80mm given in-game.
Panzer IV turret front armor was rather weak with 50mm, the gun mantlet armor did not cover the whole frontal area thus the frontal armor rating is downrated.
Tiger 1 may indeed be rated a tad too low as it was supposed to have the best quality armor plates germany could produce.
Panther is similar to T-34 with frontal armor but I believe its slightly downrated due to a negative effect of the rounded gun mantled with could deflect shots to its lower half into the hull roof plate.

(in reply to GibsonPete)
Post #: 17
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/1/2021 9:58:58 AM   
cameron88

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 10/14/2020
Status: offline
I don't think you fully read my post, The armor ratings do not evenly include the effects of angled/rounded armor across all tanks. It largely only applies to Soviet tanks, which is ridiculous, and they even go so far to give absurd armor bonuses to Soviet tanks which had basically no angled armor like the KV-1/2/8. The early T-34s had 45mm of turret armor, which had minimal angling like the Panzer IV, and should be properly represented. The early T-34s should have no more then 60-65mm front armor value ingame. You said the Panther is similar to T-34 in frontal armor and it being poorly represented is due to a rare issue with deflecting shells, which is not the case because the Panther G which fixed this issue has the same front armor as the Panther A in the game, so they clearly do not model this.

Panther:
120mm Front Turret armor
80mm Front Hull armor (55°) **More angling then the T-34**

Ingame armor: 122mm

T-34:
45 to 53mm Front Turret armor.
45mm Front Hull Armor (61°) **Less angling then the Panther** and significantly less quality metal aswell since you brought that up.

Ingame armor: 89mm

If you take these Soviet armor values alone as a base, the Panther should have 165mm Front armor atleast, since the T-34 frontal armor is effectively doubled with less angling and lower quality armor than the Panther.


You can't explain to me how this logically makes sense, there is no consistency with whoever wrote out all the armor values. And Like i said previously, it could be fixed with a new simple system of Hull+Turret armor, with a % chance to hit either one, and then the angling % added onto whatever it hit, instead of the flat front hull armor system they have now, which is very inconsistent and largely unrealistic in my opinion. Or alternatively they could just reduce Soviet armor values, which across the board are just overly high, regardless of comparing equally angled and better made German tanks which for some reason don't get the same effective armor.


And since you brought up the Tiger, the frontal turret armor on the Tiger 1 was effectively 150 to 200mm of armor, due to the gun mantlet covering 90% of the front of the turret, with the frontal sides of the turret which weren't covered by the gun mantlet being angled at 1-10°(I wish i could post photos). While the front hull was 102mm of armor, which was its weak spot, but even then, the 85mm Soviet AA gun could not reliably penetrate it in testing or on the field, let alone the 76mm and 45mm Soviet AT guns which it frequently encountered, yet in this game it seems to die to everything because it practically has the same armor as a T-34.




< Message edited by cameron88 -- 9/1/2021 11:00:30 AM >

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 18
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/1/2021 12:29:04 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3448
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
I am not a tank expert - and I am to leave the math for others but I certainly know that the German '41 Armoured Units are extremely brittle and that easily are turned in glorified motorized division with some panzer associated.

When the Soviet attacks the Germans it is a tragedy, whilst in history if we look at Battle of Dubno, the tragedy was for the Soviets.

(in reply to cameron88)
Post #: 19
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/1/2021 4:06:11 PM   
GibsonPete


Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
I was a grunt not a tanker. I do agree the Panzer divisions are a glass hammer. Why? I do not know. Am I using them wrong? I have resorted to using their MP's to secure deep positions and prey the Soviets do not focus air or ground attacks on them. They always do and I always suffer. cameron88 has a point but I believe in Deniss. He knows what we do not.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 20
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/1/2021 4:09:04 PM   
DrHiramTemple

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 1/11/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cameron88

Panther:
120mm Front Turret armor
80mm Front Hull armor (55°) **More angling then the T-34**

Ingame armor: 122mm

T-34:
45 to 53mm Front Turret armor.
45mm Front Hull Armor (61°) **Less angling then the Panther** and significantly less quality metal aswell since you brought that up.

Ingame armor: 89mm





I'm pretty sure you have the relative slopes backwards-- based on the diagrams I've seen, those angles are from the vertical, so the T34 is actually more sloped than the Panther.

(in reply to cameron88)
Post #: 21
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/1/2021 6:03:25 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3448
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline
I look at playability of the game.
To me historical realism has little relevance if then other 'historical realism' detail come short or less.

The angling of armour is 'micro' detail - and presently the game has 'macro' problems.

Gibson up there has my same experience - a Panzer Division loses 0-5 panzers against a Fortified Zone even! I've lost even 20-30 attacking a Soviet Infantry Division in clear (With level 1 or 2 fort, that I do not remember). - That is 10-20% of the initial allocation of your average Panzer Division!
The game screams 'Your Panzer sucks so you may as well not use them'.

And then yes, they 'close pockets'. They are out of air umbrella, and the ever dominant VVS bombs them.

Now how much to alter the 'armour protection levels' will alter 'how many Panzers will get obliterated per fight' - that is another tale.

(in reply to DrHiramTemple)
Post #: 22
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/1/2021 7:37:38 PM   
Zemke


Posts: 642
Joined: 1/14/2003
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
In my current game against the AI playing Germany, the date is Jan 44. I have a mix of tanks in Panzer Divisions, everything from 72 PzIII Ls left in 2nd Pz Div, to Panther As, and everything in-between. The most common tanks are the Pz IVH, then the Panther A, then the D. I have noticed my Armor "seems" to be taking less loses in combat than they did earlier in the war....it seems that way. It also seems I am killing more Russian tanks in combat. BUT, I have also learned to not use these Mechanized Units hardly at all, as they are glass hammers. Most sit on depots in the rear on forever refit. (I say forever refit as they don't seem to get many replacement tanks each turn, if any.

I have also been watching loses by the latest tanks, Tiger I and Panther and it seems most have been "operational" loses not combat loses, which is historical.

Not sure if this helps or hurts the above discussion. Just throwing out my own observations.

I do think fatigue build up is a little too high in the game at large. Particularly as it seems to also be a reflection to a degree of unit moral in the military sense, not game National Moral sense.

< Message edited by Zemke -- 9/1/2021 7:57:01 PM >


_____________________________

"Actions Speak Louder than Words"

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 23
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/1/2021 7:50:50 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

I was a grunt not a tanker. I do agree the Panzer divisions are a glass hammer. Why? I do not know. Am I using them wrong? I have resorted to using their MP's to secure deep positions and prey the Soviets do not focus air or ground attacks on them. ...


there was a patch to #1 that embedded the idea of the invincible panzer, rout them - no losses, retreat via zoc - no losses.

Now this protection fortunately was after the code split so its not in WiTE2. Equally WiTE2 has the basic WiTW rules for movement attrition.

In effect the game is probably designed to produce the late 41 situation of, as AlbertN says, a motorised division with a few tanks attached.

I don't want to set off another game balance thread, not least as I think we all acknowledge there is something wrong. The issue, to me, is not that the Pzr divisions degrade over 1941, its that the Soviets can deliver structured attacks, wreck them and retreat away. So I'm pretty much hiding my Pzrs behind the infantry.

I'm prepared to be convinced there are various reasons but I think Soviet assault fronts in 1941 sits at the heart of the problem. As I've mentioned, it wasn't until late testing that some Soviet players started to use them early and up that stage the games were mostly working out more or less fine.

That simply gives the Soviets too much, ability to regenerate, to concentrate command, to avoid command penalties, better cv and MP

_____________________________


(in reply to GibsonPete)
Post #: 24
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/2/2021 2:13:10 AM   
GibsonPete


Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline
I agree with loki100. There are some issues and given time solutions will be found and implemented. Hiding panzers is not a long term solution. Allowing the Soviet palyer capabilities they perhaps should not have needs to be examined.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 25
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/2/2021 3:55:22 AM   
Bitburger

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 2/21/2015
Status: offline
I also agree 100% with loki. The soviet mech corps were a failure in summer'41, but the assault rules enable whole tank armies to be formed from what should be disorganized fronts. Those two or three tank armies with assault status are wrecking balls as early as mid july.

(in reply to GibsonPete)
Post #: 26
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/2/2021 4:02:05 AM   
DrHiramTemple

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 1/11/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I look at playability of the game.
To me historical realism has little relevance if then other 'historical realism' detail come short or less.

The angling of armour is 'micro' detail - and presently the game has 'macro' problems.

Gibson up there has my same experience - a Panzer Division loses 0-5 panzers against a Fortified Zone even! I've lost even 20-30 attacking a Soviet Infantry Division in clear (With level 1 or 2 fort, that I do not remember). - That is 10-20% of the initial allocation of your average Panzer Division!
The game screams 'Your Panzer sucks so you may as well not use them'.

And then yes, they 'close pockets'. They are out of air umbrella, and the ever dominant VVS bombs them.

Now how much to alter the 'armour protection levels' will alter 'how many Panzers will get obliterated per fight' - that is another tale.


Oh, I completely agree that the fragility of panzers is a much broader topic than just armor values. I haven't really played the germans much yet, so I can't really comment on the topic as a whole. I just wanted to correct an inaccuracy with cameron88's argument.

On that note, for the T34, 45mms at 60 degrees from vertical gives a horizontal thickness of 90, if I've got my trig right. Given that other parts of the front are less well protected, an 'averaged' value of 80 feels about right.

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 27
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/2/2021 4:11:15 AM   
cameron88

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 10/14/2020
Status: offline
There is no inaccuracy with what i said, it should not be 89mm of front armor, because the tank is not just the hull, as this game does not have seperate values, and adds both the hull and the turret together. Because of this, the T-34 should be like every other German tank and add the turret armor into the final front armor value, which the T-34 in reality had an effective thickness of 45-50mm of armor in the turret, so this is why i said 60-65mm of front armor value would be much better then what they have currently in the game.

(in reply to DrHiramTemple)
Post #: 28
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/2/2021 6:57:00 AM   
DrHiramTemple

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 1/11/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cameron88

There is no inaccuracy with what i said, it should not be 89mm of front armor, because the tank is not just the hull, as this game does not have seperate values, and adds both the hull and the turret together. Because of this, the T-34 should be like every other German tank and add the turret armor into the final front armor value, which the T-34 in reality had an effective thickness of 45-50mm of armor in the turret, so this is why i said 60-65mm of front armor value would be much better then what they have currently in the game.


89mm is the value for the 1943 model-- I can't find armor specs for that specifically (please share if you have year-specific data on them). the 1940 and 41 models (I'm working from a model 1940 diagram) have an in-game value of 80.
as i already noted, the upper hull has a horizontal thickness of 90. the lower hull, 45mm at 53 degrees, gives a horizontal value of 75. the turret has varying thicknesses of 40-45mm but the turret itself is rounded giving a boost, though i have no idea how to calculate a specific value for that.

A simple average of these three values (75, 90, 40) gives a value of 68mm. Given that I didn't account for relative surface area, nor the angle(s) of the turret, this is a massive underestimation of a cumulative front armor value, and yet it is already higher than the value you propose. Presumably, the later models saw progressive armor improvements, given the moderate increase between models.

for another example, I looked at the M4A2 Sherman. I calculated a value of 94mm for the upper and lower hull, 88mm for the turret, and it has a rounded mantlet 76mm thick. In game, it has a value of 86. I don't see how this could turned into a value less than 70, as you suggested.


(in reply to cameron88)
Post #: 29
RE: German Heavy Pz Bn Question - 9/2/2021 7:55:43 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10699
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cameron88

There is no inaccuracy with what i said, it should not be 89mm of front armor, because the tank is not just the hull, as this game does not have seperate values, and adds both the hull and the turret together. Because of this, the T-34 should be like every other German tank and add the turret armor into the final front armor value, which the T-34 in reality had an effective thickness of 45-50mm of armor in the turret, so this is why i said 60-65mm of front armor value would be much better then what they have currently in the game.


there is a sub-section of the tech support area that is set up for suggestions about the game database. I suggest put this sort of stuff there where people like Trey are more likely to see it - and you might get an informed response as to why some design decisions were made.

as far as I know, a lot of the detail stuff came from Steel Panzers and the early work on Steel Tigers.

_____________________________


(in reply to cameron88)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> German Heavy Pz Bn Question Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.332