|
|
|
|
| Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
 |

August 17th, 2006, 08:14 AM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 902
Thanks: 0
Thanked 55 Times in 51 Posts
|
|
Re: HEAT type penetration..
Update
I have accumulated what must approximatively be 50-60 penetrations so far.The penetrations in the 80-86 range seems even less frequent than the warhead malfunctions so far.
If you want a more scientifical experiment, with maybe 50-100 (not 1000 of course)tests and the results for each written down, I am willing to do that, although it will take a few days.
|

August 17th, 2006, 10:00 AM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 6,007
Thanks: 497
Thanked 1,956 Times in 1,263 Posts
|
|
Re: HEAT type penetration..
As I think I said earlier - malfunctions/fuse failures reduce by decade post WW2. So later battles will not show the effect as with earlier.
I will run this through the debugger and check it out.
Andy
|

August 17th, 2006, 10:44 AM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 6,007
Thanks: 497
Thanked 1,956 Times in 1,263 Posts
|
|
Re: HEAT type penetration..
Ahah - much clearer once I reread the code
Improved TOW, therefore a dual charge and/or top attack ATGM. These get a bonus of 5+Random(Warhead Size) for the improved technology over straight HEAT added to pen.
There is a 5% chance of any HEAT round getting some of the Warhead Size added as over-pen. There is a 17% chance of under pen due to fuse failures etc.
Cheers
Andy
|

August 17th, 2006, 12:51 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 902
Thanks: 0
Thanked 55 Times in 51 Posts
|
|
Re: HEAT type penetration..
Yes, it was an improved TOW, as I wrote, I should have emphasized that, my mistake.
So it works out as 80+6+5=91, which is more in line with the endless strings of 88-89-90-91 I have actually observed.
But I have seen some 93, a 94 and a 98, plus possibly a 100.Random overpenetration in addition to the above?
|

August 17th, 2006, 12:58 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 902
Thanks: 0
Thanked 55 Times in 51 Posts
|
|
Re: HEAT type penetration..
As further addendum,this confirms what I had been suspecting for some time:multicharge missiles were more effective than the theoretical HEAT penetration + warhead size.I had never run extensive tests before though.
But I ask:is there a justification based on the real world or others issues, like for the warhead malfunctions?
|

August 17th, 2006, 04:36 PM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 6,007
Thanks: 497
Thanked 1,956 Times in 1,263 Posts
|
|
Re: HEAT type penetration..
A multiple charge weapon is assumed to get an extra "peck" at the same impact area that the first unmasking blast attacked. Whether plain steel, anti-HEAT armour, or ERA protected armour.
Top attack missiles are also in this category (ie treated as multiple charge) for code/databse simplicity.
Cheers
Andy
|

August 17th, 2006, 05:26 PM
|
 |
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 902
Thanks: 0
Thanked 55 Times in 51 Posts
|
|
Re: HEAT type penetration..
"A multiple charge weapon is assumed to get an extra "peck" at the same impact area that the first unmasking blast attacked. Whether plain steel, anti-HEAT armour, or ERA protected armour"
I am not sure if I get it:are you saying that the extra bonus is supposed to represent the precursor charge?
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|