PDA

View Full Version : If you thought planes are only thing wrong...read this



XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 08:05 AM
Ok, situation: making a mission for our own online-campaign which has ships in it. Have one russian destroyer and four trawlers located in Suursaari. Have Finnish ships V¤in¤m¶inen and Ilmarinen heading towards the island.

Started to wonder how these coastal defence ships are getting hits and not returning fire at all...and made some tests:

Put russian destroyer in the middle of grid E5 and V¤in¤m¶inen in the middle of grid C5...and watched poor V¤in¤m¶inen getting beaten by 130mm shells while it´s 4x254mm and 8x105mm stood silent. Changed it to Ilmarinen, same results and also with Niobe and Amiral Murgesku, no shooting at all. Russian ships from destroyer to cruisers have much more long range than it´s enemy.

Battleship Marat was also quiet. It´s big guns were shooting but without any sound. That could be something with my SB Live, or it has silencers installed.

Well, there you go, now we have something new to whine about! I was getting a little bored with all this FM/DM-talk, let´s talk about other issues in this game also; like does anyone test these things when they put them in game?

Note: Don´t take this too seriously, I found this to be quite funny /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<table style="filter:glow[color=blue, strength=3">
<tr><td><font color=white>
<A HREF="http://www.LeLv30.net" TARGET=_blank>
LeLv30_Redwing
Laivueen varakomentaja
Kouluttaja
Lentolaivue 30
</A></font></td></tr></table>

Message Edited on 09/12/0307:34AM by LeLv30_RedWing

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 08:05 AM
Ok, situation: making a mission for our own online-campaign which has ships in it. Have one russian destroyer and four trawlers located in Suursaari. Have Finnish ships V¤in¤m¶inen and Ilmarinen heading towards the island.

Started to wonder how these coastal defence ships are getting hits and not returning fire at all...and made some tests:

Put russian destroyer in the middle of grid E5 and V¤in¤m¶inen in the middle of grid C5...and watched poor V¤in¤m¶inen getting beaten by 130mm shells while it´s 4x254mm and 8x105mm stood silent. Changed it to Ilmarinen, same results and also with Niobe and Amiral Murgesku, no shooting at all. Russian ships from destroyer to cruisers have much more long range than it´s enemy.

Battleship Marat was also quiet. It´s big guns were shooting but without any sound. That could be something with my SB Live, or it has silencers installed.

Well, there you go, now we have something new to whine about! I was getting a little bored with all this FM/DM-talk, let´s talk about other issues in this game also; like does anyone test these things when they put them in game?

Note: Don´t take this too seriously, I found this to be quite funny /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<table style="filter:glow[color=blue, strength=3">
<tr><td><font color=white>
<A HREF="http://www.LeLv30.net" TARGET=_blank>
LeLv30_Redwing
Laivueen varakomentaja
Kouluttaja
Lentolaivue 30
</A></font></td></tr></table>

Message Edited on 09/12/0307:34AM by LeLv30_RedWing

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:06 AM
Unfortunately nobody here is much interested in this type of issue as I've pointed out similar cases without much echo, but I have a mission on the same map where Russian ships approaching Lavansaari from the north damage buildings located on the Seiskari islands.

Well, they aren't meant to attack Seiskari, and they don't fire either until the planes which have taken off from Seiskari attack them, so the damage they do to the buildings at Seiskari must be collateral /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

How I know that it must be the ships? Because no enemy plane ever gets near Seiskari. AAMOF, no enemy at all ever gets near Seiskari, the battle all happens north of Lavansaari, and there are no Russian bombers etc. in that mission at all.

But when the German planes fly back to Seiskari, there's infallibly some damage to the buildings on that island. Although no enemy ever gets near them.

Must be the Russian ships coincidentally damaging those buildings with their flak guns (because you can clearly see that they only and exclusively fire at the German planes, there's never any long-range fire in the general direction of the Seiskari island).



Message Edited on 09/12/0308:06AM by AchimT

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:16 AM
Yes,
I'd to whine about tank modelling. I've set up tank battles and enjoyed them many times...But I've noticed that usually 4 T-34-85 are able to beat 4 Panthers, and 4xT-34 beat 4xShermans (late war model with the better gun).
This is absolutely historically incorrect!
OLEG please release a patch as soon as possible, this gives an advantage to the red side.

;-)

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:34 AM
- Yes,
- I'd to whine about tank modelling. I've set up tank
- battles and enjoyed them many times...But I've
- noticed that usually 4 T-34-85 are able to beat 4
- Panthers,

please define "usually", range and angle.
(T-34/85 was able to knock out TIGER II (alothough from side only) and from below 300metres it was clearly able to knock out a panther -> check osprey T-34/85..)

and 4xT-34 beat 4xShermans (late war model
- with the better gun).

Same as above:
range
angle
which model T-34.
In any conflict of T-34 vs. sherman I put my money on the T-34. It's no coincidence that during the korean war americans used the pershings.... The Sherman was a nice tank but it was NO MATCH for a MBT on the eastern front, be it german or russian.
You can check this on Osprey too.

This is no flame. We shouldn't mix realistic tank battles into a flight-sim, but I say this.
a) the sherman was ugly (which is of course neglible)
b) the sherman is high (easy target)
c) it was badly armoured
d) it was constantly undergunned (even the bigger guns were inferior to other any comparable gun used on the other side)

If your comparison between shermans and T-34 means to be T-34/85 then by NO chance will the shermans win...

As for the panthers however, if range is bigger than 500m and the Field of Vision is clear (steppe) I put my money on the Panther...

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:54 AM
The Sherman Firefly had an equivalent gun to the Panther.
That was a British Sherman, not sure if it was a mod.

Later Shermans had gyro-stabilized guns or turrets and could shoot well on the move so in a running battle your money may be better bet on those. They also had very good sights. Still, one good hit from that 85 and bye-bye Sherman.

The T-34/85 was one hell of a good tank. Fast, well armored and powerful gun.

And there are places on any tank where less of a shot will kill the tank. Not every shot hits the best armor on the best place. The vision slots, the turret ring, or any of the guns directly are vulnerable areas maybe not to every small round but not needing what it takes to penetrate the front cleanly. Even much smaller rounds were used to break tracks and disable tanks.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 10:37 AM
To avoid " which tank was best in WW2"-discussion, I return to original topic.

Anyone else noticed, dare I say, bugs, with other objects than aircraft in this game? Could somebody confirm Marat is shooting with no sound, for example?

As a person who is making missions for own squadron, these things are also interesting to know. Hopefully I´m not the only one...

<table style="filter:glow[color=blue, strength=3">
<tr><td><font color=white>
<A HREF="http://www.LeLv30.net" TARGET=_blank>
LeLv30_Redwing
Laivueen varakomentaja
Kouluttaja
Lentolaivue 30
</A></font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:08 PM
-
- please define "usually", range and angle.
- (T-34/85 was able to knock out TIGER II (alothough
- from side only) and from below 300metres it was
- clearly able to knock out a panther -> check osprey
- T-34/85..)
-
- and 4xT-34 beat 4xShermans (late war model
-- with the better gun).
-

Unlikely, Russian had clear disadvantages with armor.. that is how they countered this with pure numbers. T-34/85 vs Panther on opean field, i would put my bet on the Panther. 85 mm gun of T-34/85 can't penetrate the front armor on Panther, unless he is very close, under 300 meters.. and even at this close range penetrations are rare. Meanwhile Panther can knock out T-34/85 from over 1000 meters.

Same goes for King Tiger.. except T-34/85 has to manouver at extremely close, and hit the rear armor, or side plates, preferably under 200 meters.. Not to mention Russian tanks had poor optics.

Remember 76 mm gun of the Sherman V is roughly same as T-34/85 has.. I think US 76 mm even has slightly better penetration, than T34's 85 mm.. And if you are referring to Korean war, I believe US learned from their mistakes, and improved their optics in their Shermans, and M48s.. Where as T-34/85s fighting for North Koreans were exactly the same from WW2 with poor optics.. This would give the advantage for Shermans.

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:57 PM
Oh my dear? FB is a Flightsim with a very good ground attack part.

FM/DM is not perfect, but the best on the market.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 04:22 PM
JaBo_HH--Gotcha wrote:

- please define "usually", range and angle.
- (T-34/85 was able to knock out TIGER II (alothough
- from side only) and from below 300metres it was
- clearly able to knock out a panther -> check osprey
- T-34/85..)
-
- and 4xT-34 beat 4xShermans (late war model
-- with the better gun).
-
Well guys,
I'm really thinking it's weird to discuss tank modelling of a flight sim... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif but since you were interested, I can describe the tests I've done
In FMB set up two groups each one consisting of 4 tanks some 2km away from each other and let them go one against another and stop at about 1km distance from each other. Then simply watch and enjoy... The tanks start shooting at each other .. its very accurately modeled.. and in several minutes one of the groups is destroyed. So there is always a winner /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ...
using this scenario, only changing type of the tanks you can pretty well conclude which one is better, If you think that their position on the ground makes some difference you can simply switch the types of both groups and run the scenario again...

So my conclusions were made about head to head encounter at 1km distance.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 08:49 PM
Refresh my memory, did the Panther have power turrets, or were they hand cranked still? I recall that the Tiger 1 only had a hand cranked turret, which proved to be a serious disadvantage in certain types of battles. I also recall that late model Panzer IV's were also equiped with cranked turrets, in order to keep manufacturing costs down.

If the Panthers have hand cranked turrets, then all the T-34's would need to do would be to strafe to the Panther's flanks, and it would be all over. It would be possible for the driver to turn the tank, but the gunner doesn't have direct control over that, making turn assisted aiming considerably more difficult than running a powered turret.

I was also of the distinct impression that the Russian 85mm had considerably more penetrating power than the US 76mm, though not likely as much as that of the German 88mm.

The British Firefly was a field modification to Lend-Lease Shermans. The British actually had an excellent 17 lber tank gun, but no tank with a large enough turret to fit it into. The only tank they could get they could fit it into was the lend-lease Shermans, so they did. They did develope a tank to use thier 17 lber, the Centurian, but it didn't manage to reach operational statuse, until just after the war ended.

I ought to dig out Panzer Commander again, one of these days. I wish I could run it at very high resolutions.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:09 PM
Panthers, Tigers, PzIVJ had all hand cranked turrets

Russian 85mm and US 76mm had around the same penetrating power (and much less than German 75mm Pack40/L70 and British 17Pdr who had both around the same penetrating power)

One version of the Sherman was very well armored, it was the M4A3E2(L) "Jumbo", who could frontally resist to the Russian 85L without problems.


Ou Vais-je?
Ou Cours-Je?
Dans quel Etat j'Erre?

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:55 PM
pegase_rama wrote:
- Panthers, Tigers, PzIVJ had all hand cranked turrets

The Tiger had a pedal operated hydraulic traverse system. The back up was a hand crank that required 720 turns to go through 360 degrees. The Panther also had a hydraulic system and both were dependent upon engine speed. The Panzer IVJ had a two-stage hand crank replacing the 2-stroke motor of the IVH as the primary means of traverse.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 10:02 PM
Hmmm....I wish a moderator would fly in here and transfer this post into missionbuilder-room....HIJACKERS!!

<table style="filter:glow[color=blue, strength=3">
<tr><td><font color=white>
<A HREF="http://www.LeLv30.net" TARGET=_blank>
LeLv30_Redwing
Laivueen varakomentaja
Kouluttaja
Lentolaivue 30
</A></font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 10:04 PM
I heard they turned off the gyro guns on the Shermans cos they kept getting beat up inside the turret by the gun moving around, and it was not very reliable to make much difference. That came decades later.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 10:04 PM
I think the T-34 was quite a bit over-rated. In all of my tank simulations they have never been a big problem for me.

The Panzer-IIIM or IIIN can get some decent results in my hands. Get around behind and suprise them works great. Smaller, harder to spot.

The PanzerIVJ Early is also another one of my favorite tanks. I say IVJ Early because after the first few they stopped hardening the armor. Just gota remember your turret is hand-cranked and stay back. Good gun and decent armor, but a little on the big side.

StuG-IIIG's are exelent against T-34's as well. Only at a distance cuz of the hull gun. I've also bagged some T-34's while in the StuH-42 with HEAT ammo. Good armor, hard to see.

The PantherG is a killer, and the improved turret front is helpfull. An exelent mix of speed, armor, and firepower.

And as for Tigers, I really like the TigerIE Late. Good commanders position, decent gun, good armor, and unlike the Tiger-II, IT CAN MOVE!

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 07:49 PM
Hi there,

Yes, you're not alone in noticing the bugs with ship based artillery, tanks, Marat gun sounds, etc.

Sorry about the hijack, but you'll soon discover if you haven't already that there's nothing these boys like better than a 'could x beat y' thread :>

The russian destroyer in particular has a quite ridiculously long gun range. Same with the Romanian Admiral ship I believe.

It sure makes setting up naval battles a pain in the bum.



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 05:16 AM
Clint, thank you for staying in topic /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Reason this is not good is you are going to get AAA from red ships much earlier than from the blue ships. I think the accuracy has been lowered but still, you have to fly longer in flak when attacking russian vessels.

Hopefully somebody from MG sees this post, surrounded by "What in-accurate add-onn would you like to have in this game"-threads. Let´s fix these small things also...

Ps: BTW, could we have an option to uncheck the "Unlimited torpedoes"-box?


<table style="filter:glow[color=blue, strength=3">
<tr><td><font color=white>
<A HREF="http://www.LeLv30.net" TARGET=_blank>
LeLv30_Redwing
Laivueen varakomentaja
Kouluttaja
Lentolaivue 30
</A></font></td></tr></table>

Message Edited on 09/14/0304:23AM by LeLv30_RedWing