Godman_82

Member
  • Content count

    1,602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
medal medal

Godman_82 last won the day on February 22

Godman_82 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,351 Outstanding

About Godman_82

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Poland
  • Interests
    US tanks

Recent Profile Visitors

4,600 profile views
  1. When I'm playing T20, US medium with 5.0 BR, I am fighting with Tigers and Panthers (5.7) in about 9/10 games. In namy of those games my team does not have single 5.7 vehicle. Statistically, I have 3 legs when I walk my dog
  2. M46 had HEAT-FS, it is historically correct, so it is only historical change. T-44-100 and Panther 2 (which never even existed) didn't had HEAT-FS and they will not be having it here. End of story.
  3. Sure, so the rear part, having a smaller fragments, would probably produce higher velocity fragments, and those are the fragments I'm interested in. If there is no contradictions for using Gurney equations as simplified method of assessing the velocity of those fragments, we can describe fragmentation zones of APHE pretty well (without much effort really, almost all data is in the game already). For HE rounds probably spraying everywhere is acceptable simplification.
  4. Turret ripped off - not likely in real life. Yeah, it happened few times, but mostly from ammo explosion. Yeah, yeah, I saw that Churchill shot 3 times by Jagdtiger I would love to see huge openings, big parts of broken armor Vehicle moving after hit - very not likely Round is designed to break through, not to hit the tank like a hammer. Majority (sometimes all) energy is used to penetrate and deform the armor, and also deform the round. Even if round would bounce, and not deform the armor or itself (not possible, but for the sake of argument), the force given to 10 ton tank struck by M358 round at full speed (1067m/s) will be about half of the value of the gravity given to that tank when it stands at 30 degrees inclination. And we know that the tank will not slide at 30 degrees (drag between tracks and ground is stopping it), so it will definitely not move when a force of half that value would be given. I can wear a boots against glass, not against poo
  5. It's up to You, I don't know when I will have time for this one, so there is absolutely no rush
  6. Honestly, what is happening in the frontal part of the round is not very relevant for what I am trying to find out. Because the frontal spraying obviously existed and there is no doubt about it. Whether was is made out of big pieces of steel, or many smaller fragments, everything and everyone that was in the area was in troubles. Next thing we have is the side spray, where most of the energy is working, so obviously we have many fragments in here. The question is what is the proportion of projectile velocity, and initial fragments velocity. The faster the fragments are, the higher the angle of sprayed area (because side spraying is also going forward, so it is creating a cone one way or another). Last thing - rear spraying. That would be possible only if fragments are faster (significantly) than projectile. For HE rounds, or massive APHE, like the one from SU-100Y, it's obvious that the fragments are way faster than the round ever was, so the fragmentation "all around" like we currently have is legitimate. But for small filler APHE - this is what I'm trying to find out. So the initial velocity of fragments for "usual" APHE round (so basically all except 152 mm monsters) will tell us two things - angle of fragmentation for side spraying, and existence of rear spraying. I'm still digging through internet, but my first calculations are showing that in majority of situations there is only frontal and side/frontal spraying. I don't think Gaijin would even consider making any complex mechanism for that, that's why I am already focusing on making it simple. I'm thinking about suggesting to divide APHE into big ones (those with fragments lot faster than projectile), which would act exactly like it is now, and standard APHE, which would be only spraying to the front. Angle of spraying would be nice (since the game have all data to calculate it, even I can do it quickly), but static angle for all round would also be OK. One way or another that would be a huge step forward.
  7. Thanks mate, unfortunately I have laptop, so only thing I can do is put some SSD for Windows and WT. But since I am barely playing right now (spending more time on bug reporting actually), I will wait until next year and buy some nice PC
  8. And the highlighted area is not perfect Gurney model of cylinder, but quite close, so I assume that the result should be quite close to reality, if You take ~50% of the whole round mass as M, and explosive filler weight as C.
  9. Thanks It's nice to learn something new
  10. Wait, filler is closer to the tip, not to rear? I thought that HE filler gap is at the rear of the projectile, closed by fuze. I know it has limitations, and it would probably produce some small errors, but if the result of Gurney equations for some round would be 500 m/s, the real value can't be 1500 m/s, right? And because his equations do not calculate the energy used to break the shell, the calculated value could be rather higher than real, not lower. Looking on fuse delays in WT, it's clear that Devs assumed 400 m/s as a velocity of the round after penetration. If we will stick to that assumption, then if fragments velocity is around 400, or less, that means that exploding shell will only create frontal cone (if it's 400, then cone with 90 degrees angle, 2x45), and that's the thing I want to investigate - what should be a realistic (well, simply-realistic, or semi-realistic, this is still a game) fragmentation zone for HE/APHE. In my old bug report about APHE I used HE fragmentation zones, but now I see that HE fragments can have way more velocity than APHE, which is changing the whole idea, and probably making my old idea incorrect.
  11. Having two kids, wife that is not working right now, because second kid is 3 months old, renting a apartment and paying my old loan and having just over average paying job - how about -50 bucks?
  12. That what I was talking about, not high-end machine able to run every game at max details. And again - 400 bucks is something that some people are earning here for whole month. Minimum monthly salary is something above 300 dollars. While renting 50m2 apartment in the city is 500 dollars per month, so on minimum wage You are absolutely unable to live on Your own. It those conditions 300-400 dollars is quite a lot of cash. I'm still running on potato computer, although I made some effort and installed extra cooling (taken out from even older potato), to be able to overclock GPU, so I don't have to use ULQ
  13. In my country good PC costs more than 300-400 dollars, and even if we take 400 that is almost half of national average salary. I don't mind buying gold or cheap premium vehicles once in a while, but new PC - I just can't afford that. And I think You have similar economy in Russia, where big portion of players is based.
  14. Well, looking just at the pictures from here, in-game model has a lot to correct, although those images might be affected by perspective a bit Hull Frontal plate is too long/too tall, proportions between hull and turret are not corrrect. And don't You think that turret shape at the very bottom is weird? In real life it's wider, and it covers turret ring better. In game the whole turret is somehow "lifted" up.
  15. Well, let me see what happened to 287 threads and 15 bug reports about T33 round performance, hmmm....
  16. Yeah, a bush or tree can be even a simple 2D square, still would be good.
  17. I am playing in very different times of day, and some time ago I've seen 100K people online at the peak of the day, then it decreased to about 50K. After Japanese tanks were added it jumped back to 75K, and now it's 50-60 again. Gaijin is not presenting any statistics, so people have to base on their own observations and steam charts. There is no direct proof that playerbase is shrinking, but there is also no proof that it's not ULQ should be lowering the graphics quality, even to a point when far away bush is just a simple polygon without texture, only color, no transparency values. I don't mind ugly graphics for low end computers.
  18. What I am looking for is the initial velocity of the fragments from HE explosion. After writing this post I found 1943 short book by R.W. Gurney, and later on - the Gurney equations. And maybe that's what I am looking for, but I'm surprised that no one was using that here before. Some people mentioned it, but no one used that method to discuss the APHE fragmentation zones. I will wait for Your return, thanks
  19. Hi, Does anybody have any good source of knowledge about how detonation energy is distributed in exploding HE/APHE shell? I know how to calculate the amount of energy produced by given amount of explosive material. What I am trying to find out is how much of this energy is used for fragmentation of the shell, how much is used to push the fragments away, and is there any energy lost in the process (I assume some of the pressure might be liberated after shell fragmentation "between" the fragments, basically going into air and creating just a blast or even wind). Also - how much energy is passed (if any) in form of heat to shell fragments. Thanks for any help or sources.
  20. Yes, and that's why it should not be played as front line vehicle, which makes Your argument about armor irrelevant. No armor is not an issue in Tier 5, because You will be penned by enemies whatsoever. Having HEAT-FS in tier 4, against tanks that were designed to fight against full caliber AP rounds - it is an issue.
  21. If sim battles would ever changed into "non repair mode", then this feature would be of great use
  22. ASU is 1959 vehicle with HEAT-FS in it's loadout, there is nothing to laugh about here. Maus is exactly where it belongs, it is absolutely useless and outdated against "modern" tanks.
  23. So it this case You would literally drove off You track?
  24. Of course You can
  25. You're welcome. More reports on this tank to come, there is few modeling errors, so Pz 4 can kill You from the front
  26. Hello, I want to report a small, but relevant issue with M60A1 hull armor. There is a weakspot, which is not a true weakspot of the real tank, it only exists because of War Thunder mechanics. General description of the problem I am talking about the driver’s hatch optics bulge. The effective armor value on the frontal part of that piece is less than 50 mm on most of its surface, making it possible to destroy M60A1 with tanks from I era (tested with Pz III B armed with 75 mm gun). The reasons for that happening are detailed armor 3D model on the outside, but lack of modeling of armor on the inner side, and no dimensions of the projectiles. The outer shape of the optics deck is correct, but as far as I can see, the inner shape is the same as external, which is not true. As You can see on the pictures, and in the manual, the inner shape of this cover is more flat, which means that the armor value on the edges would be higher that standard 1,5 inch / 38 mm. In-Game Scheme This is how it is currently in the game: Lets see how is it working right now. Because the internal shape is the same as external, we have artificial shot trap at the end of the bulge. I’ve drawn three possible scenarios for penetrating this part. Scenario 1 - shots with high penetration value can penetrate it through and through, which is partially what should happen, only the first penetration would create fragmentation that will most likely kill the driver, and there is a chance of blowing up the ammo. Especially HEAT type rounds, which are triggered by any armor. Scenario 2 - shots with medium penetration, that will lose too much energy when penetrating first part, and will not be able to go through again. Also, because of the angle, the shot can be bounced downwards thanks to ricochet chances. APHE type rounds will detonate here and very reliably kill the tank through ammunition explosion. I’ve tested this with 75 mm APHE rounds from I era Pz III B, most shots are deadly for M60A1. Scenario 3 - shot will go through and will continue to fly inside the tank, causing more damage (especially APHE round that will explode in the center of the tank). As You can see, all scenarios are dangerous for a tank, and many of them are deadly. To harm the tank You need a gun only with 45-50 mm of penetration, and this alone will cause damage by penetration fragmentation. Additional damage can be made by round ricocheting downwards and/or APHE explosion. Sadly I have no experience in playing Arcade Battles, but I'm sure the penetration indicator makes exploiting this bulge really easy. Real Tank Scheme Now let’s see the real tank construction, and possibility to harm the tank through penetrating this part. I have drawn a scheme of the real construction inside. The slope is too big, obviously, but I wanted to make the drawing clear and easy to understand. I put two versions, with compare to 75 mm and 100 mm round, to highlight that the penetration would not be possible with rounds of such calibers (projectiles size adjusted to 3 cm height between front and back of the bulge) From a frontal view we can see that the bulge is covered by driver’s periscope (one of the three). This periscope is M27, which is 24,4 cm wide and 7,9 cm deep, so we can say it’s sticking out of the hull for about 8 cm.That means that the whole bulge, with lid, is at most 8 cm, or even less (the periscope is mounted closer to front, so a bit lower). Real opening size The angle of the hull deck, as well as angle of the driver’s hatch, is 85 degrees. That means that with every 10 cm of the deck (from the front to the back), the armor is 0,87 cm higher. The diameter of the bulge is about 30-35 cm, so the difference in height from the front of the bulge to the end of it, is about 3 cm. So, technically, only rounds of 30 mm caliber (or less) could possibly go clean through (scenario 3). Every other round would deflect before the bulge, or behind. And even “clean through” is not possible, because the bulge is not empty inside. Scenario 3 - not possible. Note that this whole problem would not exist if the shells in War Thunder had actual 3D dimensions, and no round bigger than 30 mm would be able to fit. In this case we would only need to model the internal optics mount to absorb possible machine gun fire. Ricochet possibility The external shape is angled, but internal is not - is more flat, so there is no slope that could cause ricochet downwards. Scenario 2 - not possible. Inside the bulge Between frontal and rear wall of the bulge we have whole night vision optics mount. This is not hollow space, so the round could fly there. Currently in game we have no modules there, it’s just hollow space. The night vision periscope mount is colored with orange on drawings. This is the drawing I took from M60A1 manual, I matched the colors here with colors in my drawing. Scenario 1 - possible, but fragmentation absorbed by optics mount. Real life photo of the opened driver's hatch, You can see how flat it is. Top pf the bulge The area marked red on the drawings is the outer lid, it is external part, which would either deflect the round, or just fell off, but definitely not make any internal damage. It's a cover, not a part of the armor. Scenario 1 - impossible, external part damaged. Suggested Fix Realistic fix To solve this problem by making the part more realistic, we need to: - remodel the upper part (lid) as external part that can be ripped of the tank - increase the armor value around the optics - change the internal shape to prevent ricocheting - insert a periscope module to absorb fragmentation and to work as additional armor Simple fix To solve this problem in simple way, the upper hull armor should be modeled as flat area, with driver's hatch bulge only as a visual element Two parts fix There is also possibility to separate the bulge from the deck, but then armor value of the bulge would have to simulate the increased thickness of the bulge's wall and the optics mount. This version should also include modeling the upper lid as external part. Sources Drawing of the hatch's internal construction: TM 9-2350-215-34-P1 https://books.google.pl/books?id=DF0YAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Tests T-28 Shooting with APHE rounds You can easily oneshot M60A1 from point blank distance. In the replay You can find a few oneshoting kills in a row. M60A1 hull test (T-28).wrpl Sd. Kfz. 6/2 Few seconds of firing into the weakspot is killing the tank, or at least doing a lot of damage, with a few casualties. M60A1 Hull Test (sd.kfz 6_2).wrpl Pz. IV F2 You can destroy a tank quite easily, but I think not as easy as with T-28. Still a well aimed shot have a good chance of igniting ammunition, or at least kill a few crew members. (Few more tests after testing the bulge, You can stop watching when I'm starting to shoot below gunshield) M60A1 Hull Test (Pz4 F2).wrpl Clog File with all tests. 2017_07_17_18_17_24__5020.clog
  27. Thank You for accepting the report, I know it's quite big so I was waiting patiently Now two things I would like to say. 1. Typo in text My volume/weight "calculator" was made before I got all measurements, so I put approximated data first, and then replaced it with confirmed measures. I already put the volume value to text, and when I got measured value, I changed the value in text, but now I see I didn't managed to cover all text part. In this part of text: I've used final value, and previous one, so 179 024 (correct), and 178 067 (outdated). If You copied the text into Gaijin report system, please remove 178 067 value. 2. Steel class The report was not talking about steel class of the parts (cast armor steel, or structural). We can find the information about this in SLEP patent document. We can read: "A novel shield for upgrading an M60 tank with a 120 mm gun uses the existing shield interfaces on the M60 tank. The novel shield includes a monolithic casting made of armor steel. The casting has features that may be formed by casting or by machining or a combination of both." "Shield interface" is the whole gunshield part (explained on page 9 of pdf, row 2, line 57). Novel shield is the shield drilled to fit 120 mm gun, and it is "monolithic casting made of armor steel" plus features that can be cast or machined. The features are (for example) and flange with openings, which is new place to bolt gun mount, larger MG and optics openings, and so on. But the shield itself is "monolithic cast made of steel armor", which definitely proves that before the drilling the original M60A1/A3 cast is also monolithic and made from armor steel. Therefore I suggest using "Cast homogeneous steel" for shield and mantlet. And in the first report I totally forgot to thank @*Baconator100012 for all help with searching the gunshield weight, and explaining few things from tank manuals. and @Mo_guy1996 for actually finding the weight. This report would not be created without this value, thanks Guys
  28. gameplay

    Exactly what I thought. +1 from me of course
  29. Mo_Guy found it and told me few weeks ago, or more, and I already used it and reported the mantlet, last Thursday
  30. Hi Kota, To put this into simplest form - @Sirchby was trying to divide issues I have described in ID:0058085. The bug report thread title was "M60A1's turret armor thickness is incorrect", suggesting that the report is about thickness. The problem with angles was also mentioned, but maybe not emphasized. And lately I've made another bug report, which seems to be about the same thing (this one has no ID yet). So, to make it very clear, we have 3 issues with one part - the gunshield. This is the whole part: ISSUE 1. The thickness of the frontal shield is incorrect. We are talking about this portion of gunshield part: And this was reported in ID:0058085 ISSUE 2. The angles of the frontal gunshield are incorrect. We are talking about the same portion of gunshield part. The part have angles in range 28-60, while in game there are small fragments angled with less than 10 degrees. ISSUE 3. The mantlet behind the shield is not hollow, and should be modeled as armor in game. We are talking about this part: This is what my last report was about. As there are 3 issues, it should be probably reported three times, and 3 ID's should be given. That was the reason why Sirchby re-reported the frontal shield issue, so the angles issue would be separated. I hope the explanation is clear enough, if not I am happy to help more.
  31. I already did that what You said. Tell Your friends on Russian forum it is already reported, ask them to keep their fingers crossed
  32. Hey PAKu I have a link to old bug report on Russian forum, but the link is broken, i think the subject was moved somewhere and the link is different now. Can You try to find out where it currently is? This one: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/197743-utochnenie-tolshchiny-bronirovaniya-maski-tanka-m60a1/&do=findComment&comment=5903278
  33. Ultimate complete immunity will never be achieved, I was saying that in that particular BR it should happen for a few vehicles in a game. Even if JTiger at 6.7 would be immune to everything frontally (which is already not possible, HEAT-FS is here), still it would fight vehicles up to 7.7.
  34. The same thing that they would have to do in real life - flank it. It's funny when people are using "frontal immunity" as a reason to increase BR to the point where the vehicle is no longer immune to frontal attacks. What is wrong in a tank that is frontally indestructible? It does not make the tank better than other tanks, it is just one of the attributes. There is many other attributes, including mobility and having a turret, which are not an JagdTiger attributes.
  35. Yeah, stock tank should perform worse than real one, as it should be reserved for spaded tank. But stock tank's abilities should be only lowered, not limited like not be able to turn in place. I don't know if that's true, I'm just repeating what author said, but some tanks indeed are unable to turn at all when stock, so I guess it is possible for Chieftain. If spaded (aka real) tank can turn 360 degrees as stationary (using only one track, or neutral steer) in 20 seconds, then stock should do it in 25, 30, 40 - You can choose the number that You think is proper for making stock syndrome "nerfing" enough, but lowering the engine power below possibility to turn at all is too much, in my opinion. Of course the whole transmission system we have in WT is in deep need of serious rework, that's probably the cause of this case.
  36. @arczer25 told me, that shrapnels don't have standard penetration mechanism - if shrapnel have 27 mm penetration, then it will be stopped by 30 mm armor, but will ignore 25 mm armor. That's right, not penetrate, ignore. So it's possible that 27 mm penetration shrapnel will go through 10 layers of 25 mm of armor. Yeah, I know...
  37. This is not good example of penning the side armor, as T95E1 is terribly bad mate, it has a lot of holes in the 3D model. I already reported that few days ago. About penetration - yeah, it seems that in certain circumstances armor is just ignored, most of the times after penetrating two other armor objects. It might be also that the game "assumes" that if the round is penetrating first layer of armor, next layers will be no farther than (put any number here), and after that distance collision between the shell and the armor is no longer calculated. I even unsuccessfully tried to bug report it about a year ago, when KV-2 penned my M103 that way, but I wasn't good at bug reporting back then :P
  38. Hello, I would like to solve the long lasting issue with M60A1 gunshield thickness, and its construction behind the actual shield. It would be best if the issue would be solved along with this report, as it affects the same part of the tank: The issue was reported also on Russian forum some time ago, and I was told the report was rejected because there is no information about inside of the gunshield - is it hollow, or solid. Unfortunately, I don’t know the details of the report, as it’s now unavailable for me to see it: https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/197743-utochnenie-tolshchiny-bronirovaniya-maski-tanka-m60a1/&do=findComment&comment=5903278 After a few months of my own investigation, I have finally found a way to check the hypothesis of hollow mantlet. My investigation was long and not easy, so the bug report is unfortunately quite big, I will do my best to organize it well. Tank affected: M60A1 Issue: Incorrect modeling of armor behind the shield Investigation 1: SLEP patent drawings First source would be patent from M60A1 SLEP, which shows M60A3 gunshield modified to mount 120 mm gun. US9194664.pdf Although the drawings may not be necessary to scale (9th page of pdf file, 2nd row, 21 row) we can see the interior of the shield casting. The patent is an idea of how to mount 120 mm gun into M60 tanks at low cost. The base is existing M60A3 shield (9th page of pdf file, 2nd row, 62), with drilled bigger openings for gun and gun cradle, lightening holes, MG and optics ports, and then inserting new flange, cast shroud (to protect the flange and mimic the shape of original 105 mm shield) and new tubes for optics and MG. One of the best examples of what is inside the mantlet is presented on Fig. 3, 3rd page of pdf file. It is a view of the shield cut in half exactly in the middle, and we are seeing bottom half of it (view is shown on Fig. 2, the same page). I’ve copied the drawing to explain the whole idea. 1 is the original drawing. 2 is the combined drawing of shield and shroud, red arrows pointing where the shroud would be fit inside the drilled hole. Orange color is marking lightening holes 3 is the view of how the shield would look like before drill. Orange is again lightening holes, and green is estimated amount of drilled steel. The whole area marked with stripes, along with orange and green areas is solid steel in original M60A1/A3 shield. Notice, that behind the flange (yellow color) there is large open space, which is also enlarged recoil chamber. As stated in “Abstract” (1st page of pdf file) the shield have “through hole”, which means it is drilled from the front to back. Also, we have no holes for mounting the 105 mm gun cradle. The new holes are in the flange (yellow color), and this is the place where 120 mm gun cradle is assembled (page 10th of pdf file, column 3, row 36). On page 4 we have Fig. 6, which is a view on the shield from its rear, with view 7 marked - it is cutting the top of the shield, over the gun tube. We can see what’s inside on Fig. 7 - again, whole shield is solid (stripes), except lightening hole (orange color), which is part of SLEP project. Original shield don’t have this hole, it’s solid at entire area of cut. As we can see in every cut view in the document the only hollow places are drilled lightening holes (non existent in original shield), extended gun port and enlarged and partially removed recoil chamber (whole back of the chamber is missing). This document alone proves that there are no hollow spaces in M60A1/A3 gunshield cast. But I want to prove it beyond any doubt. Investigation 2: Gunshield volume Next source is TM 9-2350-215-34-2-1 https://books.google.pl/books?id=k1oYAAAAYAAJ&dq=m60a1 gun weight&hl=pl&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false On page 1-14 we can see the weight of the gunshield - 3108 lbs, which is 1409,8 kg. At the same page we have shield thickness - 4,5 inch. To prove that the whole gunshield is made of solid steel, without internal hollow spaces, we need to compare volume of the gunshield we can calculate from sources, and volume of the gunshield we can get knowing it’s measurements. Documented weight of the gunshield is exactly 1409,8 kg. The steel weight is 7850 kg/m3, so the volume of the gunshield is 179 592 cm3. This is documented value. Now we need measured value for comparison. A few members of WT community voluntarily measured the tanks they had access to (M60A1 and M60A3). Thanks to that we can calculate the volume of the gunshield. The fact that both tanks are using the same shield was previously consulted with @FryingTigerWT Measured values @ACE_OF_ACES Gun tube circumference - 69,215 cm Thanks to that we can calculate gun tube diameter at gun port entrance - 22 cm In mentioned bug report on Russian forum the taken measure was 64 cm, but that was taken some distance from gun port, and the gun tube is getting thicker the closer we are to gun breech. Mantlet width - 76 cm Recoil chamber width - 42,5 cm Recoil chamber edge - 3,25 cm Thanks to that we can calculate chamber opening diameter - 36 cm MG port length, with extend on the front and gun mounting inside the tank - about 30 inches = 76 cm @FryingTigerWT Clay haven’t sent me any photos, but I’m sure his measurement is trusted source even without photographic evidence. Distance from gun to side of shield - 17,5 inch = 44,45 cm Collar thickness - 1,5 inch at top, 2 inch at bottom, average 1,75 inch = 4,445 cm Side collar width - 4,2 inch per side = 21,3 cm Optics port inner diameter - 4 inches = 10,16 cm @*Lightening_Drake Side collar length (shield height, but including the slopes) - 106,5 cm Inner shield width - 70 cm Shield width - 97,79 cm Documented values Gun port diameter Next document will be TM 9-1000-213-35 https://books.google.pl/books?id=gfkXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false On Page 1-7 there is drawing of “centering tool”. This tool should be manufactured for machining the tube supporting sleeve. The sleeve have to be put on the centering tool during machining process, so the outer diameter of the centering tool is about equal to gun tube diameter where it enters the sleeve, so - exactly between recoil chamber and recoil mechanism. Thanks to that we know the gun tube is 8,9 inch = 22,6 cm when it enters the recoil mechanism. There is a little space between gun tube and gun port. We know that gun tube diameter is in range 22 - 22,6 cm, so the average gun tube diameter is 22,3. I will use 22,5 cm as average gun port diameter. On page after page 4-39 (page has no number) we have drawings showing where exactly the gun supporting sleeve is. Here I copied this page, and marked two things - sleeve internal diameter with red circle - at this point gun tube is about 8,9 inch (22,6 cm). The whole area marked with blue color is entering the recoil chamber. This part, along with mounting plate (yellow) is currently used as additional protection behind 127 mm shield. As we can see it is lot thinner (mounting plate) than we have currently in game, which was also reported: Inner shield thickness Average thickness of the shield (4,5 inch) was already taken from TM 9-2350-215-34-2-1, but it is also confirmed in Ballistic Protection Analysis on M60 Series Tanks, Final Report on page 20. (A2 is gunshield) In the same document, on page 3 we have information, that this is average value (point 5.) Estimated values Gun port length In previous gunshield bug report I’ve calculated that center part of the shield should be 218 mm, which was only theoretical calculation based on average angle and 254 effective thickness. This high resolution picture proves that it could be even around 240 mm, and definitely proves it is at least calculated 218 mm. For shield thickness I’m going to use average 4,5 inch, but for calculating the gun port volume I’m going to use 22 cm length. Mantlet side area This part is probably the most complicated to calculate. I need to carefully use proportions on M68 gunshield picture from Warsaw “Fort IX” Museum to calculate the side area of this part. http://www.warsawtour.pl/en/tourist-attractions/czerniak-w-fortress-fort-ix-czerniak-w-161515.html Area calculations: The picture is affected by perspective error, objects closer to camera are bigger. We need to find and correct the results. For that I’m going to compare gun support construction. Closer pipe’s inner measure is 1013 pixels, while farther’s - 912. Those lines are directly below sides of mantlet, and the error between them is 10%, which means error between mantlet closer side (the one we need to evaluate) and center of gunshield (where gun tube is) is 5%. That means that everything we can measure on the mantlet side we need to correct by 0,95 factor to achieve accurate results. Figures 4 and 5 are matching the gun tube position, that will help us calculate the mantlet thickness at this area. I also used that method to calculate height of the shield, but finally I got that value measured by Lightening_Drake. My value was 107 cm, which is only 0,5 cm less than real value, so the method is quite accurate. I’ve separated the area into 6 figures - 5 trapezes and triangle. I’ve carefully read the exact measures, corrected them by 0,95, and knowing that 203 pixels = 22 cm I’ve estimated every of the trapezes top, base and height, as well as triangle base and height. Thanks to that I’ve calculated the estimated side area of the part. Calculations To make it easier, I will divide the whole part into 3 sections: shield, mantlet and recoil chamber. SHIELD This is the part we would have if we would cut shield from mantlet along with side collars. This part we also need to divide into two: inner shield, and collar (collar is actually separated in the game). Inner shield is the actual shield with 4,5 inch average thickness. Inner shield This is the frontal shield without the collars. Its frontal area is almost the same as mantlet frontal area, only width is a bit smaller.. It’s thickness range is from 4,445 cm (equal to collar average thickness) to 21,8 cm at the center (calculated in previous report). Average value would be 13 cm, which is bit over 5 inches, but the edges have more area than the center, so the average value is surely smaller. I will use documented average thickness here - 4,5 inch = 11,43 cm. Collar This would be easy to calculate. We know the area of the whole gunshield, and we know the area of inner shield. That gives us collar area, and we already know average thickness - 4,445 cm. Openings - MG and optics openings are calculated in mantlet volume. As stated earlier, for gun port diameter average value 22,5 cm will be used. MANTLET We know the width thanks to measurements, and side area was precisely estimated. Openings - we know that the whole tube for MG and optics are about 30 inches long from ACE_OF_ACES photos. However, this includes additional mounting inside the tank, and extent of the port on frontal shield. The extent is sticking out of the shield for about four inches (bottom part), and the internal mounting looks about the same. So we have 76 cm total, minus 10 cm for extent and 10 cm for internal part. This is roughly approximated, but the inner diameters of the openings are small enough that the possible error in my approximations is not making almost any difference for the final result. I used the same length for optics port, only different diameter. CHAMBER This part is 42,5 cm wide and high, and the edges are 3,25 cm, which gives us 36 cm of inner diameter. As the recoil mechanism is going inside here, the opening we can see at the back should not be smaller inside. The whole part is simply a box cut in half. Side area is half of 42,5 x 42,5, and the length values is most probably also 42,5 cm All calculations are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16gEyuPJaYBE7OpjNP5IaYKrtatlab-jydS0PKgZIUkE/edit?usp=sharing Calculations.pdf All calculated parts have 179 024 cm3. Comparing results As we established earlier, the documented volume of this part is 179 592 cm3. According to calculations, the measured volume is 178 067 cm3, which is 99,68% of the documented volume. I have calculated every known empty space inside the gunshield: gun port, MG and optics openings, trunnions, recoil chamber. A bit lower volume of measured gunshield might be caused by small errors in measurement, and probably not every gunshield is identical in weight, I assume that 1-2% difference is acceptable. Note, that calculated mantlet volume is almost 98 000 cm3, and weight is 769 kg. If only half of it would be hollow, the mantlet weight would be almost 400 kg less than documented! Final conclusion Measured volume is almost equal to documented volume of gunshield, with small difference in favor of documented one. Any additional empty spaces inside would make difference in favor of measured one, not documented. Possible errors could not affect the final result by more than 3-5%. If hypothesis about mantlet being partially empty inside (assume 50%, 385 kg), would be true, then the error would be about 27% (385/1410). Total number of 22 values was used to calculate the gunshield volume. This includes: 13 values directly measured, or taken from documents 4 values calculated from measurements or documents 5 values estimated from pictures, but 3 of them (lengths of main gun openings) as a sum are close to what was measured. As You can see, most of the values are documented or measured values from real tanks. Taking everything into consideration I am absolutely confident that hypothesis of mantlet being partially hollow is not true. Calculated volume of the gunshield is matching the expected volume value, known from documented gunshield weight. Also the SLEP patent descriptions and drawings are proving that there is no hollow space inside the original M60A1/A3 shield. Therefore it was proven, by two separate investigations, that the whole M60A1 gunshield is solid steel. Proposed Fix: Remodel current gunshield, and divide it into 5 parts: 3 parts of the frontal shield, according to previous bug report ID 0058085: Upper shield - 156 mm Central Shield - 218 mm Lower Shield - 180 mm Behind those parts there should be another 2 parts: Upper mantlet - 365 mm (this part is exactly behind upper shield) Lower mantlet - 330 mm (this part is behind central and lower shield) Values are taken from mantlet side estimations, and averaged: 148, 440, 458 and 415 mm is giving 365 mm. 415, 343 and 233 mm is giving 330 mm. All values are in the google spreadsheet linked above, in "Mantlet Side" sheet. Exact place where upper and lower mantlet should be divided is top of the gun barrel. This is the same place where central and upper shield should be divided. Central and lower shield should be divided at the bottom of gun barrel. Additionally, consider dividing collar polygon into two parts - top and bottom collar, to match exact measurement from FryingTiger. Upper collar - 38,1 mm Lower collar - 50,8 mm In-game gunshield suggested remodel view: SPECIAL THANKS to all guys that helped me with this report: @ACE_OF_ACES, @*Lightening_Drake for measuring the tanks. @FryingTigerWT for measurements and consulting It would not be at all possible without You guys! If anything is not clear, or there is need for more photos or explanations, please contact me. Thank You!
  39. Hi there, fellow Tankers! I would like to put a complex suggestion about enhancements for tank control. Some of these might have been suggested before, partially, but were not highly discussed and fall deep into forum pages I hope that gathered ideas, which I revised, polished and put into logical order, will create better feedback and will be then passed further. If You have more ideas - please share, I will upgrade main post with Your solution! If You have some troubles in tank control, but You don’t have an idea how to deal with it - share the problem, some brainstorming could give us some great ideas! I’ve tried my best to make my suggestions useful, helpful and realistic at the same time. I hope You will share my point of view. Let’s go! Locking the gun Few months ago a suggestion was passed to Devs about locking the gun vertically. This doesn’t happen until today, so I would like to remind the Devs about that feature, but also enhance it a lot by new stuff. First of all - while driving the tank in 3rd person perspective, we are keeping our view on the road, and looking around sometimes, while our gunner is going crazy with turret traversing and gun elevating. This is completely out of realism, but also can be frustrating. While I’m going down the hill, and I will reach the flat part of terrain, and suddenly, there is an enemy. I was looking at the whole area, not on the exact road in front of the tank, so the gun is elevated a lot. Now I’m at the flat part, enemy jumped from behind the corner, and he’s aiming at me, while I’m aiming at the Jupiter If I would have my gun locked in centered position, or in other words, my gunner would take a break while I’m traveling, I would have my gun pointing straight forward, and then with quick removing the lock/enabling gunner I would have lot more chance in the sudden clash. Of course I can lock the gun by holding a C key, but it’s not keeping the gunner from elevating the gun up and down, and secondly - it’s not comfortable holding the C key entire time. Therefore I recommend to give an option to lock the gun completely and by one push of the assigned button, not by holding it. In other words: Option 1: Enable/disable gun movement in 3rd person perspective (key) Note - it works only while in 3PP, because when I switch the view for gunner, it’s obvious I want to aim, what else I would want to do here? If I want to look around, there is binocular view, which is not moving the gun already (unless ordered). It's doesn't mean that mouse look (C key) is not useful, but just one thing could be different. It would be very nice, if player could not only choose a Key for mouse look (it's possible today, of course), but also choose if using the key if activating the mouse look during the time the key is hold, or does it switch the view from default to mouse. Option 2: Choose between two modes: when the mouse view is activated while holding C button, or pressing the C button toggles the modes between normal/mouse Let's move forward. I’ve reached the flat terrain - like town area. My enemies will be at the same level as my tank. Elevation of the gun still is not needed, but it would be more comfortable to drive through the streets and already rotate the turret to direction where I’m heading. I would order my gunner to move the turret left or right when approaching corners, but don’t touch the elevation. Here we have: Option 3: Enable/disable gun elevation in 3rd person perspective (key) It would be also very nice to tell my gunner not to touch the elevation (or anything) while we are driving, but get to work as quick as we stop. So: Option 4: Enable/disable removing any gun lock while tank is standing still (game options) Option 4a: after moving the tank lock the gun to current position (game options) Option 4b: after moving the tank lock the gun at previous position (game options) Option 4c: do not lock the gun after moving (game options) Turning gear OK, now my gunner is acting like sane person, let’s see how’s the driver. Unfortunately, he seems also a bit crazy, when I order to turn the standing tank around. The problem is, that the driver is setting a gear accordingly to engine’s RPM. It’s not affecting the tanks with neutral steer, as NS is in fact another gear, but in every other tank the driver tries to turn starting with 1st gear, which causes very slow moving - and very slow turning. Most of tanks are turning a lot faster on 2nd or 3rd gear, so the best way to turn the tank is moving a bit forward, driver will change gear to second and then we are turning. At some tanks it is even more frustrating, because when it turns on first gear the RPM value is big enough to switch to second gear, which is too weak to turn stationary tank, so driver is again switching for first, RMP goes up, so second, and so an, and so on. My suggestion is: give the player possibility to set a turning gear. It would be best if we could change it in the vehicle Modification Card, but also ability to remove that feature when in battle, so: Option 5: Set a gear for turning the stationary tank (modifications card) Option 5a: Enable/disable using preselected gear (key) No ammo OK, there is one tanker left that I want to tell a few words about. The loader. This one is obsessed with loading the gun ASAP, he can’t stand any second of not loading the gun. Well calm down, man! I haven’t made up my mind which round I want to use for next firing, so sit back and relax, and I will tell You when to load, and what to load! Option 6: Empty barrel (key, visible in ammunition choice at the bottom of screen) I can use this option before shooting currently loaded round, and after firing nothing will be loaded. To load any round just pick one of them by pressing assigned key, and loading will begin automatically. You can also cancel current loading process by using binded key while loading. Just remember - if Your AP round is already half loaded, You will cancel it by choosing “empty”, and then decide to load AP again - the loading process will start from zero! Option 7: Enable/disable ordering every round separately (game options) This one will be mainly for realism freaks, but also can we really useful for fast shooting guns, where loading time is not a big problem, or derp guns, where You would rather wait for loading the round, that fire the wrong one (SU-152 AP/HE for example). After enabling this one You will have to order every round separately - after firing the gun will remain unloaded, unless You press a button assigned to the round type. After pressing it, the selected round will be loaded, then fire - and again the gun is empty. Repair order control In case when our tank has a few parts damaged, we are using assigned key for repair, and every piece is repaired in some order. But in some cases we need out gun to be repaired first - we are in nice cover, but the enemy is approaching. Sometimes engine repair is crucial - first we need to move, because working gun isn't going to save us, for example we are in stock medium tank, and the approaching enemy is heavy tank which is immune to our shots frontally. Apart from "repair all" feature we have now, let's add controls for repair a single part. Option 8: Allow to repair only 1 part of the tank, with combination of key assigned to repair and number of part Hold F for 3s - repair all Press F and then 1 - repair engine Press F and then 2 - repair turret ring Press F and then 3 - repair gun Press F and then 4 - repair tracks (F is only a example of assigned key) When any repair is undergoing, we can cancel it like we can already - by holding assigned key for 3 seconds. But we can use new features to build a queue of repairs, so if we used F and 1, our engine is already repaired, we can now use F and 3, and the gun repair will start right after engine is repaired. That simple feature would give us full control of repairs of our tank. For those who prefer watching pictures rather than reading! Interested, or not, impressed, or not at all, please - leave even the shortest comment Thanks everyone for attention!