| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 2185
|
|
|
 Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:19 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
Please describe the contents of each website too.
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:21 pm |
|
|
Posts: 412
|
|
|
| Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:28 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Is this true? Is it just a matter of (thickness) / sin(angle from horizontal) to get the effective armor? That was my first thought too, but I found it too simplistic to be used broadly.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:47 pm |
|
|
Rehabbing from my plasticrack addiction!
Posts: 688
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: |
Is this true? Is it just a matter of (thickness) / sin(angle from horizontal) to get the effective armor? That was my first thought too, but I found it too simplistic to be used broadly. |
Yep, that is all it is. Basically the slope forces the incoming round to travel a farther distance to penetrate the armor than vertical armor of the same thickness.
_________________
Nuts! - General Anthony McAuliffe
 |
|
| Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:29 pm |
|
|
Posts: 412
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| The best things usually are that simple, I can't think of any other way it would work. Of course not every shot is ever going to be perfectly straight and hit parallel with the ground but that's why we use dice. This also does not take into account the possibility of a shot deflecting. but for determining armor thickness I think it fits the game just fine. |
|
| Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:36 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm not convinced tbh, because kinetic energy is only one part of the damage. The rest is chemical energy, and chemical energy is irrelevant to the velocity vector (the angle of impact). Without having thought about it at all, I'd expect HEAT rounds to be minimally affected by angle and older ones to be affected more, but not to the extent implied by that formula, I think.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:52 pm |
|
|
Posts: 1357
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I know this is not about the thickness of the armor, but is there a formula or chart to compensate the thickness for the quality of the armor? Some metal is better at resisting penetration than others. For example, I believe late in the war the Germans were less able to make the high quality armor previously used and used less quality metal for armor. Believe it affected the Elephant most.
Higher quality metal would resist penetration better than lower quality metal of the same thickness and angle with the same weapon used.
_________________
It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Joseph Stalin |
|
| Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:43 pm |
|
|
Posts: 166
|
|
|
| Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:23 pm |
|
|
Posts: 166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| MrKen wrote: | I know this is not about the thickness of the armor, but is there a formula or chart to compensate the thickness for the quality of the armor? Some metal is better at resisting penetration than others. For example, I believe late in the war the Germans were less able to make the high quality armor previously used and used less quality metal for armor. Believe it affected the Elephant most.
Higher quality metal would resist penetration better than lower quality metal of the same thickness and angle with the same weapon used. |
Great points---perhaps we can try to take armor quality into account when devising defense for Vehicles.
_________________
 |
|
| Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:24 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tenente_Colonello08 wrote: |
Great points---perhaps we can try to take armor quality into account when devising defense for Vehicles. |
Sure. I don't think we were planning to use simply thickness or angle.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:24 am |
|
|
Posts: 585
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
The archive of Field Artillery Magazine , including editions from 1911 to 2007.
Great read on everything related to Artillery. Could come in handy when we try to determine the exact effects of artillery in game.
http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/archives.htm
_________________
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.
Heinz Guderian |
|
| Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:27 pm |
|
|
Posts: 585
|
|
|
| Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:41 am |
|
|
Posts: 363
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Angelofdeath wrote: | Another interesting tidbit of information :
Official WW2 German tactic describing the best way to defend against Ground Attack aircraft. Believe it or not.. the answer was small-arms fire. Believe it or not.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/defga/index.html
So, perhaps we should include at least the possibility for infantrymen to drive off an enemy aircraft. With the best of luck. |
MGs should be rather effective, but I agree that most other infantry should probably be limited to Disruption--most of the time they would probably aim to make the attacking Aircraft break off the attack due to overwhelming small-arms fire, rather than actually damage/destroy the plane--still a possibility, but a very small one. Besides, if they put bullet holes in the plane like the bulletin mentions, it might require a long repair time, but the pilot wouldn't IMMEDIATELY turn around and head home, but rather, he would probably stick around (Disruption).
_________________
 |
|
| Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:52 am |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I agree that small-arms fire could help, but we have assumed that a miniature represents 5 riflemen and I don't think that the article refers to so few men firing against aircraft. It's almost crazy firing with five rifles against a strafing fighter flying at 450km/h. Btw, while I was doing some research on the p-400, I came across this article. 600 Japanese soldiers killed by 3 strafing P-400s.
IMO, if we allow antiair attacks for nonantiair units, we'll only slow down the game without noticeable difference in gameplay or historical accuracy. I think that only MGs make sense to have some antiair capacity in our current scale.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Jan 04, 2009 3:30 am |
|
|
Posts: 585
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
It would probably become a bit tedious if we did include small-arms fire being effective to ground attacks. Simple and quick would be best.
_________________
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.
Heinz Guderian |
|
| Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:23 am |
|
|
Posts: 135
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I agree with N.D. and AoD. The game will become cumbersome if it attempts to simulate all possible situations, no matter how uncommon or unlikely.
_________________
HHRgamer |
|
| Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:55 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Sharpe, can you include in the first post the site you use for tanks. I liked it a lot, but I can't find it now.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sat Jan 24, 2009 7:56 pm |
|
|
|
