Jump to content

Comet/Centurion mantlets overperforming.


In the later years of WW2 and into the early cold war Britain used a pretty unique turret design.

maxresdefault.thumb.jpg.dea6f9b922892ea0

instead of using large flat steel plates with a hole cut out for the gun and mantlet assembly, the Comet and Centurion have large cast gun shields (effectively a mantlet) that actually take the place of both the mantlet and turret face, such that the entire turret can be made fom only two cast steel pieces. This was a pretty novel design and allowed for thicker turret armor with little increase to weight, as well as simplified production.

 

However, this design does have it's flaws. For starters, the gun shield has to be pretty much flat in order for the gun to be free to rotate up and down. This means that this turret design can't take advantage of angled armor. Also, the large mantlet seems like it would transmit the shock of an impact directly onto the gun assembly, potentially damaging the gun elevation mechanism. I've never read of this actually occuring, but it is generally a problem with all gun mantlets. Finally, these designs don't scale particularly well. When the mantlet only has to be 100mm thick, it poses no issue, but in order to keep up with the tank arms race you would need thicknesses around 200mm, which would make the mantlet extremely heavy and pose issues with the gun balance and gun elevation mechanism.

 

British tank designers clearly realized these problems, and in the late 1950s and early 1960s they began experimenting with mantletless turret designs, such as that of the FV4202 that would lead to the Chieftain tank and it's formidable well angled turret.

Here's' where War Thunder gets it wrong.

The turret of the FV4202 was designed explicitly because it was stronger than the base centurion turret. In game, it's the exact opposite.

655390670_Centturret.thumb.jpg.7e94641a2

898402512_FV4202turret.thumb.jpg.5276e96

 

The reason why it overperforms is because the mantlet, which should just be one cast piece, is actually modelled as several weird interlocking plates, which happen to trigger volumetric shells and cause the turret, which should only offer 152mm of protection, to offer ~300mm of protection over much of it's surface.

1735786860_samepiece.thumb.jpg.6ea1991d0

In order to fix this discrepancy, the entire mantlet should be converted to one single plate of armor ASAP

 

The sooner this is fixed, the sooner we can stop with this nonsense...

43115274_Turretarmor.thumb.jpg.428d16444

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, watch_your_fire said:

In order to fix this discrepancy, the entire mantlet should be converted to one single plate of armor ASAP

 

Wouldn't making it volumetric armour be a better way to do it?

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaijin slowly updates the old armor layout to a volumetric ones. We'll have to wait till that day since there's a lot of tanks with this issue currently.

  • Like 2
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TwitchyCarlos said:

How does Comet play into this then? It already uses volumetric doesn't it?

Yes but it still gets a bit crazy near the MG port and around the edge of the mantlet. Definitely a lot better than the Centurion 3 mantlet though

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can say that about a lot of MG ports in game, look at pretty much anything German and you'll see MG ports nominally 80mm of protection that end up providing 200mm+. T14 which has just about the worst designed MG port of the tanks in game amazingly provides decent protection because of how WT works and I'd say Besa MG ports in game are some of the worst in game terms. 

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the mantlet is 152mm minimum - the center point is clearly more than 152mm (I got around 180mm from pixel scaling, using 76mm front plate as ref.).

 

300mm is definitely a bug that needs fix, but then so are all MG ports and edges of armor. Just a change to missing armor that used to be more common.

EXQ0N7YXkAE6f2Y?format=jpg&name=900x900

For comparison, M48:

EXQxUiUXgAAEORy?format=jpg&name=large

 

And the thinnest Leo1:

EXQzDKZWoAAtGTM?format=jpg&name=medium

Edited by Loongsheep
  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Loongsheep said:

Except the mantlet is 152mm minimum - the center point is clearly more than 152mm (I got around 180mm from pixel scaling, using 76mm front plate as ref.).

Then we're dealing with two separate bugs, both of which have the same solution: Gaijin must contact a museum for a detailed scan of the Centurion mantlet and convert the in game model to volumetric ASAP

4 hours ago, TwitchyCarlos said:

Meanwhlile

While the Panzer IV MG port is annoying, surely you understand that it's far easier to avoid hitting that than to avoid hitting 70% of the Cent turret

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye my point is theres a lot of fuckery going on at the minute especially since volumetrics. These MG ports should be weak spots and in game they act as the oppisite for everyone almost. Hopefully they can get hold of a mantlet to scan eh. 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TwitchyCarlos said:

Ye my point is theres a lot of fuckery going on at the minute especially since volumetrics. These MG ports should be weak spots and in game they act as the oppisite for everyone almost. Hopefully they can get hold of a mantlet to scan eh. 

Yep agreed, hate how weak spots irl = strong points in game

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might as well implement a system that breaks the elevation mechanism when the gun mantled is penetrated but the shell is stopped by the turret armor.

An IS-2 can hit a Tiger in the turret and the overlapping parts will stop the shell. Realisticly there would either a 122mm shell stuck into the gun mantled preventing it from moving or the gun mantled would deform so much that elevating the gun would no longer work.

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be noted the FV4202 is a technology demonstrator, the thickness of the armour wasn't necessarily supposed to be better than the Centurion it was more about the feasibility of mounting the gun and other things.

 

That said yes, volumetric shells interacting with joints between DM pieces is horribly broken and gaijin doesn't seem to care.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, they need to do a lot of work with volumetric. Found like 20 )))))))))))) locations on the Chieftain 10. Basically, it's fair to say that it was a mistake to add volumetric shells before they finished updating all tanks with volumetric armour.

1427693910_workisneeded.thumb.jpg.8a3e21

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Then we're dealing with two separate bugs, both of which have the same solution: Gaijin must contact a museum for a detailed scan of the Centurion mantlet and convert the in game model to volumetric ASAP

The cut-in-half Centurion is now available for close inspection at Bovington.

Construction is pretty straight-forward so it really isn't much of a challenge. It is more about the willingness to make an accurate game.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, watch_your_fire said:

Wow, they need to do a lot of work with volumetric. Found like 20 )))))))))))) locations on the Chieftain 10. Basically, it's fair to say that it was a mistake to add volumetric shells before they finished updating all tanks with volumetric armour.

1427693910_workisneeded.thumb.jpg.8a3e21

 

Chief 10 has very good turret armour wasn't it an upgrade to get them in line with challengers (armour on a lot of top tier tanks is questionably modeled at best), everything else is poor. 

 

Must say tiger mantlets are far more trolly than comets! 

 

 

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiger mantlets are insanly trolly to the point of bizzare, they need to take a look at that as I've bounced like 4 consequetivie close range shots sometimes or penned instantly with 76mm M1, they have a real issue with very shallow but angled areas in WT I reckon. 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DrPhibes1 said:

Must say tiger mantlets are far more trolly than comets! 

 

2 hours ago, TwitchyCarlos said:

Tiger mantlets are insanly trolly to the point of bizzare, they need to take a look at that as I've bounced like 4 consequetivie close range shots sometimes or penned instantly with 76mm M1, they have a real issue with very shallow but angled areas in WT I reckon. 

Tiger mantlets definitely overperform as well.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2021 at 05:38, TwitchyCarlos said:

How does Comet play into this then? It already uses volumetric doesn't it?

 

On 22/01/2021 at 05:57, watch_your_fire said:

Yes but it still gets a bit crazy near the MG port and around the edge of the mantlet. Definitely a lot better than the Centurion 3 mantlet though

Comet's mantlet isn't volumetric armour yet:

Spoiler

GxC3C8Q.png

Zx1iyp2.png

 

In fact I don't think any British vehicles outside the Challenger 2s incorporate volumetric armour yet...

 

As for the Comet, the turret face and mantlet do overlap in some places to create around 204mm of armour, which I suppose can be more of a problem now we have volumetric shells.

 

There is another bug here as well in that the Comet's turret face and mantlet should be cast homogeneous armour and not rolled homogeneous armour. Making it CHA would give it that 0.94x armour modifier making both plates effectively 96mm "thick" rather than 102mm.

 

Volumetric armour would likely sort out a lot of the problems we have with British tanks. The current armour layout leads to some areas being thicker than they should be and others being thinner than they should be.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 21/01/2021 at 23:26, watch_your_fire said:

The sooner this is fixed, the sooner we can stop with this nonsense...

43115274_Turretarmor.thumb.jpg.428d16444

This is however nowhere near as annoying as playing in a centurion mk.10 and having machine gun bullets go through your mantlet... Or the little ridge on the turret roof that magically turns AP shells right down into the turret. Not to mention the massive trunnion blocks missing from behind the centurion's mantlets.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

maybe it could finally go down to 7.0 with this fix eh...

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2021 at 09:56, watch_your_fire said:

In the later years of WW2 and into the early cold war Britain used a pretty unique turret design.

maxresdefault.thumb.jpg.dea6f9b922892ea0

instead of using large flat steel plates with a hole cut out for the gun and mantlet assembly, the Comet and Centurion have large cast gun shields (effectively a mantlet) that actually take the place of both the mantlet and turret face, such that the entire turret can be made fom only two cast steel pieces. This was a pretty novel design and allowed for thicker turret armor with little increase to weight, as well as simplified production.

 

However, this design does have it's flaws. For starters, the gun shield has to be pretty much flat in order for the gun to be free to rotate up and down. This means that this turret design can't take advantage of angled armor. Also, the large mantlet seems like it would transmit the shock of an impact directly onto the gun assembly, potentially damaging the gun elevation mechanism. I've never read of this actually occuring, but it is generally a problem with all gun mantlets. Finally, these designs don't scale particularly well. When the mantlet only has to be 100mm thick, it poses no issue, but in order to keep up with the tank arms race you would need thicknesses around 200mm, which would make the mantlet extremely heavy and pose issues with the gun balance and gun elevation mechanism.

 

British tank designers clearly realized these problems, and in the late 1950s and early 1960s they began experimenting with mantletless turret designs, such as that of the FV4202 that would lead to the Chieftain tank and it's formidable well angled turret.

Here's' where War Thunder gets it wrong.

The turret of the FV4202 was designed explicitly because it was stronger than the base centurion turret. In game, it's the exact opposite.

655390670_Centturret.thumb.jpg.7e94641a2

898402512_FV4202turret.thumb.jpg.5276e96

 

The reason why it overperforms is because the mantlet, which should just be one cast piece, is actually modelled as several weird interlocking plates, which happen to trigger volumetric shells and cause the turret, which should only offer 152mm of protection, to offer ~300mm of protection over much of it's surface.

1735786860_samepiece.thumb.jpg.6ea1991d0

In order to fix this discrepancy, the entire mantlet should be converted to one single plate of armor ASAP

 

The sooner this is fixed, the sooner we can stop with this nonsense...

43115274_Turretarmor.thumb.jpg.428d16444

Mantlet was removed because it restricted gun movement, turret shape and complicated production and maintenance.   Britain had started developing the steep angles and smooth shapes to deflect incoming round to reduce the amount of armour needed.  This same principle is what makes those places on the turret so bouncy. Note it's the angled armour that's bouncy on the turrets where you have marked.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2021 at 22:13, DaemonBlackfyre said:

This is however nowhere near as annoying as playing in a centurion mk.10 and having machine gun bullets go through your mantlet... Or the little ridge on the turret roof that magically turns AP shells right down into the turret. Not to mention the massive trunnion blocks missing from behind the centurion's mantlets.

I haven't had any problems with MGs slipping through but yes the Cent 10 is very clearly underperforming as you've pointed out.

On 27/03/2021 at 07:26, GoddePro said:

maybe it could finally go down to 7.0 with this fix eh...

Of course! If this fix ever comes.... Gaijin is going to be busy as it is fixing the mess that they made with the Olifants, whose models are clearly unfinished

17 hours ago, Razielkaine said:

Mantlet was removed because it restricted gun movement, turret shape and complicated production and maintenance.   Britain had started developing the steep angles and smooth shapes to deflect incoming round to reduce the amount of armour needed.  This same principle is what makes those places on the turret so bouncy. Note it's the angled armour that's bouncy on the turrets where you have marked.

On the Centurion? It doesn't seem to really matter if it's a bit angled or not, values in excess of 500mm vs KE are clearly overperforming. The shells aren't bouncing, that wouldn't be much of a problem since they would just bounce down into the rest of the turret or maybe the hull roof, they're actually just not penetrating in the first place.

 

I made a mistake in naming this thread, though. I should have mentioned that the Tiger 1 is just as bad for this sort of thing.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah definitely, the mantlets are designed to absorb damage but they're definitely over performing in game. Honestly the amount of screwyness Volumetric has made has made it less realistic than it was before. 

 

Good example : Heres me bouncing a 122mm off an Ostwind.

 

 

Overall I'm not even sure how they're going to fix it. Even before volumetric there were annoying spots on tanks like Tiger drive port that are a biiiit stronger than they should be. And as we see in Tiger Is case even making the mantlet volumetric doesn't exactly fix it because of the angles present on the mantlet it still has spots where it thinks your hitting at an angle and behaves strangely. 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...