AP/HE ammo ???

[seabolt]

Not only does Vesku use that information all of the time, so did period tank and AT crews. They were provided all available data on penetration values at range and armor thicknesses of enemy tanks.

Meta-gaming ain't meta-gaming in real life ...

-- 30 --

[Cross]

Not only does Vesku use that information all of the time, so did period tank and AT crews. They were provided all available data on penetration values at range and armor thicknesses of enemy tanks.

Meta-gaming ain't meta-gaming in real life ...

-- 30 --

I hear you. But with a few clicks we have FAR MORE data available to us. Info that tank crews could have only dreamed of.

We have every detail of enemy units, with no room for error.
For example: Is it a Pz IVd or IVe? They look the same but one has much thicker front armour. IRL you'd do well to tell the difference, but at a click we ID the unit and know it's exact armour thicknesses, and other details

Surely, not having an exact pen matrix hardly begins to compensate for this 'unrealistic' advantage?

[Cross]

Since we talking about pen values at various ranges. I should also mention realistic 'range finding'.

In SP we instantly - and with no error - know the precise range to any target. IRL, in the smoke, dust and stress of battle, this was not so easy.

Doesn't the lack of an exact pen matrix also help replicate the uncertainty and errors of WWII range finding?

Also, experienced players do learn what they can knock out at what ranges. I think it's great that experience can count for something in this game.

[seabolt]

Surely, not having an exact pen matrix hardly begins to compensate for this 'unrealistic' advantage?

Point most certainly taken, though I feel compelled to point out that Ivan the veteran 45mm ace could parse a IVD from a IVE given the opportunity to inspect it in detail prior to firing. The extra armor was applique, and the cupola was redesigned. The D itself was the first IV mounting the gun in a mantlet. So on and so forth.

When I look at a football player, I notice a) his number, which should suggest his position; b) his face mask design, which also suggests as much; c) his helmet design, which gives some indication of his priorities vis a vis safety and medical history; and d) whether he's skipped part of his kit, which tells different things depending on what he left out. I expect soldiers to be at least as observant as myself ...

-- 30 --

[Cross]

Surely, not having an exact pen matrix hardly begins to compensate for this 'unrealistic' advantage?

Point most certainly taken, though I feel compelled to point out that Ivan the veteran 45mm ace could parse a IVD from a IVE given the opportunity to inspect it in detail prior to firing. The extra armor was applique, and the cupola was redesigned. The D itself was the first IV mounting the gun in a mantlet. So on and so forth.

When I look at a football player, I notice a) his number, which should suggest his position; b) his face mask design, which also suggests as much; c) his helmet design, which gives some indication of his priorities vis a vis safety and medical history; and d) whether he's skipped part of his kit, which tells different things depending on what he left out. I expect soldiers to be at least as observant as myself ...

-- 30 --

Hi Seabolt,

Sounds like you have a widescreen HDTV with the benefit of super-zoomed in close ups? :smoke:

Our original post was regarding a range of over a KM! Not sure about the visibility, but you can imagine the exhaust smoke, battlefield smoke, dust etc. The target tank may have had painted camo, netting, logs, sandbags, foliage, or kit bags/boxes to further obscure its identity.

Both tanks were probably moving, in great danger and in a hurry to get a shot on target. Even 'Ivan the veteran' may be hard pressed to distinguish between the d and e at that range under battlefield conditions.

This crew actually had the presence of mind to select the correct ammo (given the range).

[seabolt]

Sounds like you have a widescreen HDTV with the benefit of super-zoomed in close ups? :smoke:

Usually I have two Mk I eyeballs on the sideline or in the stands.

Our original post was regarding a range of over a KM! Not sure about the visibility, but you can imagine the exhaust smoke, battlefield smoke, dust etc. The target tank may have had painted camo, netting, logs, sandbags, foliage, or kit bags/boxes to further obscure its identity.

I thought the discussion had migrated to the benefits and realism of penetration tables in general, not just in an outlier example.

Let's say 400 meters is a more standard engagement range. German gunners routinely used the 11x Entfernungmesser 14 or 34 for rangefinding. Let's halve that to effective 5.5x to account for the negative effects of 11x picture wobble. That gives us an effective range of 73 meters. (A Soviet would be using 8x30 binoculars, instead, halved to an effective range of 100 meters.) The cupola on a Mark IV was ~0.8 meters across. A football kneepad is ~0.1 meters wide. Can I distinguish whether a football kneepad is being worn, and if so whether it's been modified, at 9.1 (or 12.5) meters distance? Most certainly.

I don't want to suggest that the points you raise are not valid. I do want to suggest that we may underestimate our grandfathers' ingenuity and skill in overcoming those difficulties. If you or I were asked to use a rangefinder and ID a target on a 1942 battlefield, we'd be in real trouble. But that's like asking Ivan the 45mm ace to create a FaceBook page.

-- 30 --

[Vesku]

I hear you. But with a few clicks we have FAR MORE data available to us.

If we have that much more info then why not the penetrations? And the penetration info we actually should have, no matter what amount of dust there is on the battlefield. It would be nice if you'd see only "Tank" when there is much smoke between spotter and the target.

[Vesku]

I'm with you Seabolt, even I strain to identify tanks from the old pictures by checking the sprockets and cupolas etc. why not an experienced crew.

[Cross]

I thought the discussion had migrated to the benefits and realism of penetration tables in general, not just in an outlier example.

You are right, it had; I was using the OP's 1KM range as a poorly re-introduced example. :rolleyes:

I don't want to suggest that the points you raise are not valid. I do want to suggest that we may underestimate our grandfathers' ingenuity and skill in overcoming those difficulties. If you or I were asked to use a rangefinder and ID a target on a 1942 battlefield, we'd be in real trouble. But that's like asking Ivan the 45mm ace to create a FaceBook page.

-- 30 --

I agree that we shouldn't underestimate historic crews ingenuity and ability.

My point is that - and in a similar way - we know the exact unit ID, the exact range, and the armour thickness; all we have to do is use a little ingenuity (and experience) to determine if our guns AP round has a reasonable chance of penetrating a target at 'whatever' range...

In the example of the OP, we didn't even need any ingenuity or experience. The crew figured out for you, that it had a better chance with HE than AP at that range.

If you were really anal, err... I mean resourceful, :rolleyes: you could actually keep a log with 'pen' results at various ranges with different guns. This would expedite the learning curve of experience.

I prefer the game as it is. I have an idea of my chances based on the gun data, range and armour. It would take some of the mistique from the game if I had only mathematical data to consult.

[Cross]

If we have that much more info then why not the penetrations? And the penetration info we actually should have, no matter what amount of dust there is on the battlefield. It would be nice if you'd see only "Tank" when there is much smoke between spotter and the target.

Hi Vesku,

I agree that in an ideal game there would be ID obscurity; and mathematical pen tables for guns, as a decision making aid.

In fact the ideal wargame should be a mix between the certain and the obscured.

Neither SPWW2 or SPWaW was coded with ID or range obscurity. In light of this, I think it's a benefit not to have pen tables. This allows a little of the unknown back onto the battlefield.