My Leo2A5 got killed by a fu#@ing MG!!!!!!!!!

[McDaniel]

Pic says more than words:

http://users.quick-line.ch/mcdanielson/MG-Leo2Kill.JPG

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

is this possible? I know the firepower of a MG, but we are talking about my beloved Leo2A5..... :roll: :wink:

Regards
Daniel

[Bluewings]

:shock: :question:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Ssnake]

Wow.
Ten seconds ago I wouldn't have believed that this was possible. I'll look into this.

[Lone*star49]

...

:shock: WOW!!

After magnification and seeing/reading the kill shot by MG, (if that stands for Machine Gun), then it appears that the theory of "a magic bullet" is alive and well..


LS :?

[TankHunter]

Holy crap! Was that HMG or COAX?

[Ssnake]

What I could check, I checked. The 2A5 bow has a KE resistance of 410mm and doesn't show open seams, so it doesn't seem to be the vehicle/vulnerability model. Al will look into it as well, and check the power of the T-72 MGs. Maybe there's a decimals error, although nobody ever reported this before.

[Trekker]

Well it is hollow armour.

[luit]

well had the same problem

[Ssnake]

Not in this model - I had to combine the add-on with the main armor. But even then it would need an open seam between adjacent triangles to make this possible, and there doesn't seem to be an open gap, not even at extreme zoom.

[Ssnake]

Argh!!!!

[Skybird03]

there was a report about a comparable thing with regard to the T-72. I lost track of how it ended. Could anyone point me, please, or tell me if it was a real issue, or not? Don't want to write something wrong. I myself was unable to duplictae it with a 0.5cal peppering the turret's frontal armor. The T72 was stubborn and refused to blow up.

[McDaniel]

It was the HMG from a T72, and to be honest, before thsi happend i was hit maybe 1-2 times with a heat round.... :oops:

[Blackmuzzle]

It's like the vent shafts on the Death Star!
"That hit was one in a million, kid!"

See, I knew that all those cheesy Scifi movies are actually realistic... ;)

[dejawolf]

emptied around 300-400 7.62mm rounds and 200 50 cal rounds into that area.
no penetration. its probably something messy with the T-72 50. cal.

[Skybird03]

emptied around 300-400 7.62mm rounds and 200 50 cal rounds into that area.
no penetration. its probably something messy with the T-72 50. cal.

then the "Rode troepen's" MG is messy as well. 2nd screenshot is not a T72 MG hitting the Leo, but infantry, if I understand that Dutch word correctly (or is it Danish?)

[dejawolf]

yes, well, we got our searchlight on it now. there was various bugs like this that got squashed during beta test, but some has slipped through, and most are already on the list to be fixed, which you'll probably not have time to experience before they're fixed in the first update.

[sabot_ready]

I have ran tests on this and have consistently been able to be killed by T-72 MG fire from a front aspect .
T- 72's had been stripped of all other ammo.

[sages]

Man. I thought I was just getting killed by them because I suck. I guess that makes up for the BMP-1s-can't-hit-squat bug.

[luit]

Mine got killed by troops. Before the hit with 5.56 it got hit 2 times with atgm

[Mav]

THAT will teach you to stick to a hull down position ehh :twisted:

[TankHunter]

Maybe the armor gets degraded to a point in which a small arms round penetrates?

[luit]

hmmm i sure don't hope so

[RIPper]

the tanks have hit points, and hitting them 1000 times from a rifle kills them.....just kidding :D

[TopKick]

It's caused by rust and poor preventive maintenance.

[3Star]

This is why you will find privates in tank motor pools banging repeatedly on armour panels with a small hammer: They're looking for soft spots.

Personally, I'm having a hard enough time killing T-72s with 105mm main gun, let alone coax.

NTM

[Kamatz]

It's a bit of a whimp-gun the L7... But since I killed two T72s with 25mm APDS' through the commanders hatch in one mission (not that I tried - I just wanted to bug them enough to get away..) I suppose that's where to aim with the L7, too...

[Kludge]

I had the same problem, only 7.62 vs Leo.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/kludgers/SS_19_45_21.jpg

[Captain_Colossus]

I have a screenshot of an M2A3 Bushmaster kill right around the T-72 IR searchlight. This occured at about 600m, but a single hit sperated the turret instantly. For some reason the image won't appear here after uploading unless I'm logged in.

[dejawolf]

its the hatch that is turret-pop sensitive. its a bug and will be fixed.

[RecceDG]

FWIW, I got killed last night by a T72 HEAT round that hit the underslope of the glacis, about the location of the second picture.

It had taken 3 or 4 KE rounds on the upper glacis with no damage.

:shrug: That'll teach me to make sure my hull down really is hull down; I didn't see it as a problem. But it's a data point in any case.

I also put a T72 on my work-in-progress ASLAV-25 gunnery range that charges straight at the player, and I killed it with an extended burst of 25mm KE. It didn't turret-pop, it just brewed up.

I thought it was a little odd that that was successful... but I heard about Bradley killing T72 in Iraq and thought maybe it wan't out of the question.

DG

[Captain_Colossus]

You'll have to take my word that this wasn't the TC hatch- the area was between the IR searchlight and the main gun.

[Bluewings]

Anybody who has concerns about Armor values , please feel free to contact eSimGames at :
http://www.esimgames.com/ContactUs.htm
:mrgreen: :twisted:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[TopKick]

Close is good enough for government work.

[Ssnake]

The T-72 model WAS sketchy, and will be addressed with the first upgrade. But we're still at a loss about that MG bug. It should be impossible. Apparently it isn't, and we don't have a good explanation yet. Maybe it's a quantum dynamical effect - the bullets tunnel though the outer layer of the armor (at which point they would hit the ammo compartment, where even a single bullet can wreak havoc.

[Kludge]

Close is good enough for government work.

I've noticed on some larger scenarios that hits are recorded kinda funny. I made one HUGE scenario trying to max out my system and every hit shown in the AAR was about 6 ft above the vehicle.

[Hellfish6]

Had infantry knock out two of my Leos at the same time:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/keenedder/SS_21_27_46.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/keenedder/SS_21_29_00.jpg

[Wildfire]

In Desert Storm I saw a brad take out a T-72 at appx 200 meters. Sucker was dug in good, brad gunner and tank saw each other at about the same time and eached traversed on each other. The brad won the draw. First few rounds hit the turret spinning the turret around. Brad finished with a few rounds to the engine for a mobility kill.

[Ssnake]

I have had eight tanks to fire MG on a single Leo 2A5 now for several hours, but no kill. I've found other weird things during this test, but the Leo survived. I am at a loss how this can happen. Al is looking into this, but our best guess is that there were simultaneous hits of MG fire and large caliber rounds.
Not that I'm especially fond of that theory, but so far I couldn't disprove it, and I have no better explanation.

[RnR]

I killed a T72 with a M1 50 cal just under the frontal slope yesterday after my gun and turret had been disabled, or something like that , and I thought "well, I'll give this a shot" and I think it died with the first bullet or so. My 2 cents.

[CommC]

I've noticed that the default loadout for WP infantry includes Milan missles. These have been quite deadly taking out M1s. Are you sure the kills were MG rounds and not RPGs or Milans?

I've had to carefully edit all my scenarios to remove these Milans.

[Ssnake]

The T-72 is a special case - it's armor model is way off and has been corrected, so the next upgrade should bring some improvements here.

What really bug us however - please concentrate on this in this specific thread! - is the mystery how Leo 2A5s can be killed by MG fire to the bow.

[Hellfish6]

My Leo2A4s were killed my infantry small arms on the frontal bow.

[richard]

Now that you have learned about the "LEO". Switch to a good tank..M1A1..

[Ssnake]

Please, whenever you see such an occurrence, please make a screenshot of the AAR event showing the impact location (and post it here, or send it ro me by email). I think that so far all events happened to surfaces around the hull ammo stowage area which is particularly vulnerable even to a single bullet - if the bullets somehow manage to bypass the outer armor layer. Which, of course, should be impossible.

[Ssnake]

It may very well be that the Leo just reveals this kind of behavior even though it may be a general problem that affects all vehicles. If there is a bug that allows impacting projectiles to bypass surfaces, this could lead to (less obvious) trouble for all other tanks.

[Wahrborg]

25mm

[Hellfish6]

I have bigger pics at home than the tiny ones I posted here. I'll upload them in a few hours. They all show infantry small arms making frontal penetrations on the Leo2A4.

[Retro]

Played around with it and getting it too now.. pretty regularly in the scenario i created (link (http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e9826217/PICS/infantryleokill.sce))

http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e9826217/PICS/SS_19_01_02.jpg

In my scenario, let the infantry get into the bunkers (hold fire) then fire a little coax in the direction of the bunkers.. they'll open fire then and after a bit (maybe 5 minutes max here) my tank gets knocked out or heavily damaged.

[Bluewings]

Thanks Nick , I was going to post that screenie too .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Trekker]

Now you ruined my paintjob. And my engine!?

[Lone*star49]

Thanks Nick , I was going to post that screenie too .

Cheers . :3starSK:
...

Well, of course.. LMAO

This is the exact reason for my statement of "serious MP" is not worthy. If any serious campains, VU vs VU, or tournaments with stats start up before this, and other Beta team errors that slipped thru all the engagement times they practiced, you practiced, do you really believe that my statement was in error? I know I would be pissed off if all my planning and efforts came down to a unit count, or number of kills, or of holding the obj with the most forces, etc., and this happened to any of my tanks, and my team lost the battle in such a "serious MP engagment" that carried any winning titles, stats, etc.

Unreal, unacceptable, for worthy-battles IMO as I said and stand on, but for practice, pickup H to H battles, as I said, sure, MP is great as the game it is, until patched to the standards of a sim.

Now you can add some more post counts on to your next "title" adventure.

Am I alittle upset? Yea I am, and for good reasons, for being treated like some school boy just stumbling into PRo, when my commen sense shows me by reading others posts, and tells me, shows me, with the unique AAR color feature of where the hit came from and hit, and from what. And with all that already in your beta hands, that just after ex amount of "days" that the public gets their "gold" SB Pro, and these things pop out, that the Beta team never saw, seems like, never watched the AI just run routes thru trees, around rocks, or the AI take shots at close range, with a low Tank range score, then the same with a very high Tank range score?

Well done? Sure. Could it have been much better.. damn straight.

IMHO


LS

FTR.. I speak only for myself, as a buyer and owner, who still believes in esim, that they will fix these errors, and more that may come, and have faith that it will become The_Sim it can be.

[Bluewings]

:question: :shock:
and other Beta team errors that slipped thru all the engagement times they practiced, you practiced,
that the Beta team never saw

Unfortunatly LS , you do not have access to the Beta forums . If you had , you would see MANY posts , screenshots and threads about the armor values being poorly implemented . The fact is because of the new Models , Nils had litterally HUNDREDS of "impact boxes" to get right , and all for many different kind of ammunition .
He ~Nils~ never asked for our help by providing us the tool to make the armor values alongside him .

Yes , you and others are right to complain about .
(Look how I do not take things on a personal level . Would you care to do the same , please ?)

Cheers . :3starSK:

[TankHunter]

Please, whenever you see such an occurrence, please make a screenshot of the AAR event showing the impact location (and post it here, or send it ro me by email). I think that so far all events happened to surfaces around the hull ammo stowage area which is particularly vulnerable even to a single bullet - if the bullets somehow manage to bypass the outer armor layer. Which, of course, should be impossible.

M1 losing a gunner due to small arms fire.

Not a K-kill, but still close to topic, and odd.

[Lone*star49]

:question: :shock:
and other Beta team errors that slipped thru all the engagement times they practiced, you practiced,
that the Beta team never saw

Unfortunatly LS , you do not have access to the Beta forums . If you had , you would see MANY posts , screenshots and threads about the armor values being poorly implemented . The fact is because of the new Models , Nils had litterally HUNDREDS of "impact boxes" to get right , and all for many different kind of ammunition .
He ~Nils~ never asked for our help by providing us the tool to make the armor values alongside him .

:arrow: Yes , you and others are right to complain about .
(Look how I do not take things on a personal level . Would you care to do the same , please ?)

Cheers . :3starSK:
...

Well of course BW's, less your thumbs down, head hitting wall, statement back to me along the same post thoughts in another thread. Non-personal it shall be from now on.

You see, in my world, my business, my flying, my life, there is one thing that is on record.. and that is my "accountability

And when I see, names in lights, (credits) with "I did that", "I knew that" "I told you so", "You don't know Pro MP" ect. ect. etc., it comes into play at this end, as I have to "account for" more than most know, and it will stay that way, between me and myself.

Thanks for the inside brief after the fact.. and not taking it to a personal level with me in other threads. Ok?

On that thought, I leave this thread alone and file it under: Accountability lands where you show up for it.


LS

[Retro]

Not sure if that's right either..

Bmp2 killed with the MG (http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e9826217/PICS/SS_22_56_53.jpg)

[Bluewings]

Well of course BW's, less your thumbs down, head hitting wall, statement back to me along the same post thoughts in another thread
Because you were pissing on the Beta Team .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Skybird03]

(...) you would see MANY posts , screenshots and threads about the armor values being poorly implemented . The fact is because of the new Models , Nils had litterally HUNDREDS of "impact boxes" to get right ,

Are the armor values that wrong? That surprises me. I tested a very lot with this setup: target tanks at 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000 meters and then shooting their front, side, rear (separate test shooting for hull and turret as long as these could be aimed at precisely), each vehicle side shot at at 0°, 30°, 60° reflection. KE/SABOT. Then seeing what effects had been done on the target.

Generally Sabot at below 1800 meters tended to be lethal . And then my general minimum expectations had been met: the level of penetreation power decreased, the greater the shooting distance was. Turret was heavier armored than hull. Front more than side more than rear.

Could you give specifics about the probpems with armor? I cannot judge things on basis of real world values, but I found my above assumptions pretty much reasonable. I had nothing to complain about armor.

[Lone*star49]

Well of course BW's, less your thumbs down, head hitting wall, statement back to me along the same post thoughts in another thread
Because you were pissing on the Beta Team .

Cheers . :3starSK:
...

Excuse me? I haven't seen any other Beta Team members posting tons of stuff in every thread between here and there of late regarding PRO PE.

No, you sir, and only you, is my only complaint, as a highlighted member of the beta team with the ongoing voice.

If any of the other Beta team members took offence on that post, they have said nothing to me in any threads or PM's.

Ya know Fred, in another post of yours, I called you jokingly, a spy.

But I was wrong, you're a clever troll.. :wink:


LS

[Bluewings]

Are the armor values that wrong?

No , not at all .
They only need to be polished .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Bluewings]

before any effective MP battles get worthy
But while I'm at it, if this is all true, and more coming down the pipe from us buyers/users, then you MR. BetaMaster, did not see the obvious..
and other Beta team errors that slipped thru all the engagement times they practiced
the Beta team never saw
Who said that LS , who ?

You have no idea how hard and time consuming it is to do beta testing . Loading and reloading dozen of times the same scenario , made especially to make a SINGLE bug appears to only find out that the bug can only show up in different conditions than in the scenario you just made . So you make another scenario and you re-start from square one . Then , when you finally isolate the bug you find out that it only appears on YOUR PC , and not on other Beta Testers PC ! etc ...
If the bug is confirmed by the other testers , it is finally reported to Al who quickly code and send a new version or exe. file to the Team who must check if the bug is really gone , only to find out that another bug ~unseen before~ is showing up ...
Back to square one again .
10 versions or exe. file later , the bug re-appears on one 's PC !?? AARRRGH !!!!!
You scream bloody murder , bang your head against the wall , but you keep going because you love the software to bits and you know there are dozens of people in the SB forums who keep asking why the software has not been released yet .
At one point in time , the bug list showed 250+ bugs . But you keep going ...
While you chase bugs ~or ghosts~ you still have to make maps and scenarios , which you need to change/update at each new version or exe. file because some features you were counting on have been taken out or some new ones have been implemented . But you keep going ...
Weeks passes by ... Months passes by . Time is running out . But you keep going ...
The bug list is getting shorter , people in the SB forum still knocking at the door , some even get real pissed , loose their patience but not you . You keep going ...
And all this time , you do it for free , in good faith that one day the software will be good enough to be released to the public .
And when it is finally released to the public and people start to go WOW and enjoying themselves playing SP at home or MP in TS , you have a bloke who never tried MP yet saying that it is "not worthy" .

Where is my shotgun !!! :mad2:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Skybird03]

Relax, BW. I feel with you. I have never been a Beta Tester myself, but tested this software only for one week, with quite some repetitive actions. Especially the shooting tests were simply - boring. It does not compare to the effort guys like you are spending at it, but I can feel with you.

I think you guys did a good job, dispite the things that passed your attention. I already had to learn that I missed one or two tings, too. That's life. Keep up the good work and make sure that Al really is repairing what has been found, in a reasonable time frame.

[Lone*star49]

...

Fred, maybe you'll understand this.

This thread is about problems and complaints.

Questions and answers.

I'm the customer who put out the 125 dollars, not once, but twice, and 2 more buys to come in the very near future.

So, with all your/the hard work, I expected a finished product. And from your posting, it appeared that from your quotes of "it's wonderful" etc., battle accurate and rdy. I never heard any truth (we got problems) other than what I read, and have seen, and saw for a short bit on my own PC while it worked.

If you can't see that and understand my unhappiness, along with the questions of "how did it get by?" and get gold plated and sent? All along, you have, by choice, been the lead BETA VOICE in the forums with polished answers, cept for your insult jab pic of thumbs down head banging on the wall that I don't know shit about SB MP.. be it SB1 carry-overs of 6yrs, or PRO because I called it not worthy of Realistic, accurate, Battles, that with some boots guns, and any 50cal, anyones tanks are in deep trouble from head on or the side. How real is that? Let alone AI can't shoot, or drive?

Really, you just don't understand dissappointment, along with accountability, runs from the top down. Or so it appeared, until you or anyone else, finally shoots straight with me'/us, the paid for; public.


I sure wish I could send out my finished products, out, not right, (complete & accurate) and get paid, and then just polish up the mistakes, however, to my clients and keep their business.. over 6yrs. No such luck.

So, you speakin for Esim? I thought I was speaking to you/them.

Fred, you painted everything rosy and into a corner, is the old saying, while you painted me an idiot that can't descern quality, accuraccy, and what is "battle rdy" or isn't, as something I know nothing about, along with how much work has been put into this sim, and how hard it was, and will be to get it right.

You basically are saying LS is a fool, knows nothing of how the hard working world works.


Yep, you need a shotgun, you're sniper days appear over, as your aim is way off.



LS

[Bluewings]

I understand your frustration LS , but your latest post is full of lies !
I quote some :
your insult jab pic of thumbs down head banging on the wall that I don't know shit about SB MP
I never said that . I said that you didn 't try ProPE online yet .
I called it not worthy of Realistic, accurate, Battles
Wrong and lies . many players are ACTUALLY playing ProPE and are enjoying themselves . Read the forums .
Let alone AI can't shoot, or drive?
Greatly exagerated . Again , you 're wrong and you 're lying .
while you painted me an idiot that can't descern quality, accuraccy, and what is "battle rdy" or isn't
Where did I painted you as an idiot ?? :shock: :question: Anyway , what do you know as you said yourself that you only tried the software ~I quote~ : " for a short bit "
You basically are saying LS is a fool
No , not at all . I am saying that you don 't know the software YET and that you 're talking too fast .
Yep, you need a shotgun, you're sniper days appear over, as your aim is way off.
Again , not at all . It is you who 's waaaaaay off by describing something that ~unfortunatly~ you haven 't played yet .

I am not eSim salesman , I am not eSim voice . Which allow me to tell you to go to Hell . You put words in my mouth , you make the Beta Team look bad , you 're wrong on many accounts regarding ProPE and you 're getting on my nerves .
Go play T72 Balkans on fire if you 're not happy , and leave me alone .
I have more important things to do than arguying with you ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Bluewings]

Btw LS , there are actually ~as I speak~ 26 people in TS playing ProPE online ...
They must be really stupid to play such a crap software ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Wahrborg]

Stop this f%¤&"/ BS

[Lone*star49]

Btw LS , there are actually ~as I speak~ 26 people in TS playing ProPE online ...
They must be really stupid to play such a crap software ...

Cheers . :3starSK:
...

For fun, practice, knowledge, sure.. Again you fail to comprehend the truth of my statements. And your trolling manner.


LS

[Captain_Colossus]

Not sure if that's right either..

Bmp2 killed with the MG (http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e9826217/PICS/SS_22_56_53.jpg)


That probably makes the most sense in this topic- I recall that one could coax the troop compartment and score a BMP somewhere below 1000 meters in SB1. There's not much armor there, but the location of the fuel cells in the troop doors ought to inform any controversy above all else. I might question whether that would be an instant kill, but Steel Beasts doesn't model a more or less operational vehicle until a fire gradually consumes it. Close enough.

[Bluewings]

Stop this f%¤&"/ BS

Rgr that loud and clear . I am sorry :oops:
Final words : ProPE rocks ! :P

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Ssnake]

25mm
That's not a bug. It's difficult to hit that spot, but if you do from such an angle, it IS a weak spot.

[Ssnake]

Not sure if that's right either..

Bmp2 killed with the MG (http://stud3.tuwien.ac.at/~e9826217/PICS/SS_22_56_53.jpg)
That's an actual, and documented weakness of the BMP. The rear doors are fuel tanks, and not safe against small arms fire. Despite what "Myth Busters" found out, tracer ammo CAN and will set those fuel tanks on fire with the troops trapped inside the vehicle.
:?

[Ssnake]

It would be cool if you would try to calm down a little.
These ... well, shall we call them "freak kills", of tanks by rifle fire cannot be reproduced reliably. In fact, I haven't been able to reproduce them at all, and neither can Al, and they have never been reported by our army customers or the beta team either.

I may have been guilty during some phases of the development of neglecting the armor file refinement, although I think that with the exception of the T-72 and the BRDM most of the vehicles were relatively solid in their vulnerability definition.

All that aside - the MG but is NOT related to the vulnerability definition of the vehicle models, or else one could kill the tanks reliably and repeatedly by MG fire. The fact that this is not possible on a regular basis is proof enough that there is a problem that roots deeper. What we're seeing here is a symptom, but we don't know the cause yet. eSim is not in denial of this phenomenon, even though the theory of simultaneous hits from two impacts, of which the MG was recorded, or of packet loss in multiplayer sessions, could not be falsified yet.

Finger pointing and accusing as well as hyperbole in the expectations of a "zero defect software" are not helping at all to analyze and rectify the issue. Let's concentrate on a systematic observarion and reporting of these incidents so that we can rule out possible reasons for this phenomenon, and finally get to identify the cause of it. Once that it's identified, I expect that a quick solution is in reach.


As far as "serious multiplayer games" are concerned - as long as nobody knows how to reliably exploit this issue (which would be a great help to plug this hole!), I don't see this as a serious show-stopper. It could happen to either side, and it's not happening on a regular basis anyway, so aside from the annoyance factor of it I cannot see that it would shift the balance towards either side.

[Retro]

That's an actual, and documented weakness of the BMP. The rear doors are fuel tanks, and not safe against small arms fire. Despite what "Myth Busters" found out, tracer ammo CAN and will set those fuel tanks on fire with the troops trapped inside the vehicle.
:?

Even diesel fuel? I thought this was even used as additional means of armor in some vehicles?

But good to see that it's a feature ;) Just trying to help..

[Lone*star49]

It would be cool if you would try to calm down a little.


Finger pointing and accusing as well as hyperbole in the expectations of a "zero defect software" are not helping at all to analyze and rectify the issue. Let's concentrate on a systematic observarion and reporting of these incidents so that we can rule out possible reasons for this phenomenon, and finally get to identify the cause of it. Once that it's identified, I expect that a quick solution is in reach.


As far as "serious multiplayer games" are concerned - as long as nobody knows how to reliably exploit this issue (which would be a great help to plug this hole!), I don't see this as a serious show-stopper. It could happen to either side, and it's not happening on a regular basis anyway, so aside from the annoyance factor of it I cannot see that it would shift the balance towards either side.
...

Time will tell, but could this be a combo of the small arms fire hitting the same spot, making a hole, combined with a mistake in velocity power, which combined, makes for the magic bullets?

Also, what could be different between your software that you and AL are using, vs what the rest of us are using, since you and Al cannot replicate this and yet its popping up for so many?


LS


Added: Also, could it be possibily related to every 3rd round being a tracer, and somehow the logic is thinking that the glow is extra hot heat, making the shots get thru by mistake?

[Trekker]

The diesel inside the doors will not ignite since there is not enough air inside the doors. But if you should get a penetration through the whole door, it would get real hot inside the fighting compartment. But i doubt any smallarms fire would penetrate 5-6cm of armour and ~25cm of diesel.

[Bluewings]

But i doubt any smallarms fire would penetrate 5-6cm of armour and ~25cm of diesel.
Yep , I doubt it too ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Wahrborg]

If anyone saw "Mythbusters" on discoverychannel a cupple of months ago, you'd see that it takes 20cm of fluid for a standard .50cal BMG round to brake up and disintegrate.. But that was fired into a big swimmingpool of water, so i guess the physics is a bit different then maby

[GaryOwen]

Added: Also, could it be possibily related to every 3rd round being a tracer

Hmm, I thought that the standard mix for API/APIT and Ball/Tracer, at least so far as the U.S. is concerned, was 4 x 1.

[Lone*star49]

Added: Also, could it be possibily related to every 3rd round being a tracer

Hmm, I thought that the standard mix for API/APIT and Ball/Tracer, at least so far as the U.S. is concerned, was 4 x 1.
...

Thanks GO, least you got my meaning, I stand corrected.


LS

[Captain_Colossus]

If anyone saw "Mythbusters" on discoverychannel a cupple of months ago, you'd see that it takes 20cm of fluid for a standard .50cal BMG round to brake up and disintegrate.. But that was fired into a big swimmingpool of water, so i guess the physics is a bit different then maby

Was that a test firing into submerged ballistic gel? I only heard about that second hand, but what is the analogy here? Does that demonstrate that a hot slug and other incandescent fragments cannot trap there and burn inside a diesel container?

[GaryOwen]

Even diesel fuel? I thought this was even used as additional means of armor in some vehicles?

I don't know about diesel fuel, but hot shrapnel ripping through a fuel bowser can certainly set JP-8 on fire.

[Wahrborg]

Was that a test firing into submerged ballistic gel? I only heard about that second hand, but what is the analogy here? Does that demonstrate that a hot slug and other incandescent fragments cannot trap there and burn inside a diesel container?


Basicly they fired .50 BMG rounds down in the water, and messured the distance from where to bullet hit the surfuce to where it breakes up and disintegrates.

so i meant that the diesel in the fuletanks in the backdoors actually has an proctection value in it's self vs small arms fire.

[Captain_Colossus]

Yes, but those aren't conclusions refuting different applications? If you say that the infantry compartment doors simply cannot be penetrated- ok. On the other hand, the swimming pool test seems to discredit the Saving Private Ryan depiction of something else- that even a heavy round would fragment or deform in water before too long, i.e., before reaching a human body. However, the effect that we're talking about here is not deep penetration so that the round continues on into something else, but that even hot fragments could have a volatile effect with combustible fuel involved- IF they can penetrate to get in there.

[Zipuli]

The BMP-2 backdoors (fuel tanks) have only around/less than 1 cm (total) of armour on both sides of the door and the diesel between... So it's not that hard to fire through the backdoors. And all the fuel tanks (5 in total - 1 big one between the left and right troop compartment, 2 in seats of the troops (they're sitting on diesel and leaning their back on diesel), 2 in back doors) are connected to each other, so when fuel is consumed, the doors also lose some of their "armour" (or better bullet resistance), and other way round, if you shoot at the doors (low) the diesel will flow to ground from all tanks until the level of the hole is reached (there is no way to seal one of the tanks from the fuel system if I remember right - and why wouldn't I?).

I've been told that the diesel acts like a extra armour and should not ignite when shot at - I haven't tried out myself! But I've seen a few videos and pictures where BMP is hit and drives away with open door burning...

Zip

[Wahrborg]

Well.. You could say that the back doors on a BMP consits of 3 different layers. 15-25 -mm armor - the fule it'self - another 15-25mm armor (no i dont agree on 1cm in total, i've been fuleing up those tank to many times for that) . Regardless if the diesel actually has any armor value or not, it fairly safe to belive that small arms fire would not penetrate all 3 layers, .50 cal maby, but not small arms. You may penetrate one layer of steel, and the fule may catch fire, or not, but it realy dosent matter, unless you fire from inside the vehicle and let the burning fule poor back in the fighting compartment.

[Lone*star49]

...

Interesting, as with airplanes, for instance, planes that crash with fuel onboard tend to catch fire do to heat, spark, of some sort as the igniter, and the "fumes" are what catch and burn, fed by the fuel. But most that crash because they ran out of fuel, do not burn.. no fuel, no great source of fumes.

Now thinking on a bullet going thru a full tank, acting like water, slowing down a bullet, yet, if the fuel-level is below where the bullet entered and continued into the crew dept, then you have a hole and a source of fumes, that given a spark, or enough heat, by electrical current, a gun, or guns being fired thru holes for the onboard crew as a means of protection before exiting the unit, might explain both views of how could this happen in real life and PRo's rendering, with enough bullets, with heat combined, makes for the fires to ignite, no matter.

Hmmm, I just don't know the burn characteristics of Diesel fuel.


LS

[Zipuli]

"Well.. You could say that the back doors on a BMP consits of 3 different layers. 15-25 -mm armor - the fule it'self - another 15-25mm armor (no i dont agree on 1cm in total, i've been fuleing up those tank to many times for that)."

I meant that the armour+diesel+armour could be (present) around or less than 1cm of "armour" (value against penetrator in RHA)... Sorry for the bit unclear english! I've been fueling them quite many times too ;)

And I would tend to think that small arms fire could penetrate all the layers, because AP ammo is getting quite popular in armies nowadays and 7.62mm even without AP can penetrate quite well. Not every bullet, but some of them!

Zip

[Wahrborg]

Ok that makes more sense, sorry =)

I still think it sounds low and do seriously doubt that a 7.62/10/39/54 would penetrate all that much, but since you've apparently seen figures, and i havent, ill have to trust it. I would like to see the sources for that information thoe?

Re: the AP rounds. AFAIK SB Pro PE does not simmulate small arms AP rounds for the infantry?


Btw - CC Why do you keep editing your posts after ppl answeres them?


Edit: I've done some reading, thinking and talking to my old officers, and i have to say that i do not belive it. You will not penetrate 20 mm + diesel + 20mm whit small arms fire. I'd say this is an error in the software.

[Captain_Colossus]

Diesel is less volatile than gasoline, but it has heavy oil content- it should have the propensity to burn at some point. But I don't see where the stopping power of a fluid matters in this case, at least insofar as setting a fuel fire is concerned- whether a round fragments or otherwise deforms by the time it reaches a flammable solution or not isn't my concern, unless I am convinced that a vehicle fire at that location can be easilly contained or generally speaking isn't any threat to the vehicle- maybe that's a good argument, aye laddies. So in that sense, yes, maybe the instant kill is the unlikely scenario however threatening it would be in the long run.

[Blake]

EDIT:
Isn't BMP armor also cheaper aluminium alloy wich is lighter than normal steel?

[Trekker]

No, it's steelarmour. And damn hard such.

[Zipuli]

Only the front hull armour (top) is made of lighter steel that has aluminium. I mean the piece you lift open to get in touch with the engine...

Zip

[Trekker]

Yes, the engine hatch is of aluminium but it's thicker then the rest of the hull, and have the spalls.

[Captain_Colossus]

Btw - CC Why do you keep editing your posts after ppl answeres them?




A miserable notebook computer with insensitive, flat keys combined with my enthusiasm moving ahead of my keystrokes generates a few typos or ideas which may seem unclear upon retrospect. I don't however retroactively adjust main ideas so that they are incompatible with what has been previously discharged, or discussed.

[Lone*star49]

Btw - CC Why do you keep editing your posts after ppl answeres them?




A miserable notebook computer with insensitive, flat keys combined with my enthusiasm moving ahead of my keystrokes generates a few typos or ideas which may seem unclear upon retrospect. I don't however retroactively adjust main ideas so that they are incompatible with what has been previously discharged, or discussed.
...

Comes from pounding the keys and the mind.. lol



LS :wink:

[Captain_Colossus]

SB Pro PE rates 10 mm penetration @ 1000 m with 7.62 mm ammunition, corroborating the same results with SB1- nothing seems to have changed there. If the outer layer of the exit doors can withstand that, then debate fails and you probably have your answer; the exit doors were underrated from the beginning if the ammo penetration values are accurate.

On the other hand, including diesel fuel and the inner layer after penetration of the outer layer (IF that is possible) concluding the total armor thickness would be misleading- whether the rounds stop at the fuel or not doesn't refute the notion that fuel is flammable; Now I might suggest that an automatic instant kill just because of the intial fuel fire might be unlikely- perhaps the fire merely remained contained in that area, or perhaps fire suppression of the crew was not accounted for. Still, I always rationalized the 'kill' as the crew bailing out, and for all practical purposes in that instance, the vehicle is 'dead'.

[Wahrborg]

Captain Colossus said: "SB Pro PE rates 10 mm penetration @ 1000 m with 7.62 mm ammunition, corroborating the same results with SB1- nothing seems to have changed there. If the outer layer of the exit doors can withstand that, then debate fails and you probably have your answer; the exit doors were underrated from the beginning if the ammo penetration values are accurate.

On the other hand, including diesel fuel and the inner layer after penetration of the outer layer (IF that is possible) concluding the total armor thickness would be misleading- whether the rounds stop at the fuel or not doesn't refute the notion that fuel is flammable; Now I might suggest that an automatic instant kill just because of the intial fuel fire might be unlikely- perhaps the fire merely remained contained in that area, or perhaps fire suppression of the crew was not accounted for. Still, I always rationalized the 'kill' as the crew bailing out, and for all practical purposes in that instance, the vehicle is 'dead'."


It's not missleading at all. You dont get the fact that the round needs to penetrate all the way through the door for any burning fule to enter the fighting compartment of the vehicle and by that make it un-operational - therefor the total rha of the door is the only thing that is of value in thid discussion. If you where to penetrate the outer layer and set the fule in the tank on fire, it still wouldent effect the operational level of the vehicle - the crew would most likely dont even notice it in the heat of battle.

Edit: Added a thread from tank-net about 5.56/7.62 penetration values

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=10887&hl=5\.56mm+rounds

[Captain_Colossus]

Captain Colossus said:



It's not missleading at all. You dont get the fact that the round needs to penetrate all the way through the door for any burning fule to enter the fighting compartment of the vehicle and by that make it un-operational -

I have concluded rather repeatedly that a fuel fire does not necessarily consume a vehicle, and it probably would not do this instantly to be sure; SB does not model this gradual kind of change but rather a binary condition of dead/not dead at any given instant. You won't get an M1 Abrams fire starting at the engine compartment overcoming that vehicle either- maybe one day.

Of course, what you get is always a crude representation done within the practical limits of modelling complex behavior: one predetermined outcome may invoke deficiency as another- the vehicle is always safe or the vehicle is never safe. The only way out of that dilemma is to present indisputable evidence that the doors are proof against the availabe ammo types or that the fuel inside is somehow inert. But everything else is open to conjecture what could happen...

[Ssnake]

SB Pro PE rates 10 mm penetration @ 1000 m with 7.62 mm ammunition
No, that's the performance at the muzzle. 800m downrange about 90% of it's energy is already lost.

As far as the fire issue is concerned, we cannot model a slow consumption of a vehicle by fire that starts in a localized area/component. Maybe we'll get to that point one day, but right now we can spontaneously combust the entire vehicle.

[Captain_Colossus]

Hmm- I've been reading that chart like a donkey all of these years. At any rate, I don't intend to undermine Wahrborg's experience, whereas can only speak from the position of theoretical ignorance.

[Hackworth]

I have had eight tanks to fire MG on a single Leo 2A5 now for several hours, but no kill. I've found other weird things during this test, but the Leo survived. I am at a loss how this can happen. Al is looking into this, but our best guess is that there were simultaneous hits of MG fire and large caliber rounds.
Not that I'm especially fond of that theory, but so far I couldn't disprove it, and I have no better explanation.

Just a thought here. I've seen an occurance before when viewing the AAR in which a tank that had already been detroyed gets hit again by small arms fire and shows up in the AAR. So what you have is a tank that is dead already being hit by MG fire. The AAR would show the status of the tank as "destroyed" as it does in the original screen shot though it was not the MG fire that killed it. When I first saw this I had a "WTF!?" reaction, but went back in the AAR an event or two and found that the tank in question had been destroyed by something worthy such as a TOW or tank main round. The MG fire was hitting a dead vehicle. The AAR doesn't show the smoking ruins of a tank, the AAR shows perfectly conditioned tanks, even when they are dead. So, it is misleading when seeing the AAR stills since the dead ones don't apear so. If an actual screen shot from the game were taken of that event instead of the AAR, I bet we would be seeing a dead smoking tank being hit by .50 cal.

$.02 and I hope it helps. Nothing worse than looking for bugs that don't exist.

[Trekker]

Another MG issue. Is the missile launcher always raised in simulation?

[Trekker]

After some tests i noticed that the commander gets hit if you fire just above the sight.

[Ssnake]

Just a thought here. I've seen an occurance before when viewing the AAR in which a tank that had already been detroyed gets hit again by small arms fire and shows up in the AAR. ... The MG fire was hitting a dead vehicle. The AAR doesn't show the smoking ruins of a tank, the AAR shows perfectly conditioned tanks, even when they are dead.
Yes ... maybe that IS the explanation. Still something good came from is since I discovered other ballistic holes while investigating this one. Small holes that make kills through them unlikely.... but possible still. We'll fix that.

[Retro]

This tank was hit quite a bit before (but still only said "light damage") by an RPG and a few BMP2 KE shots.. into the right roadwheels.. but the coupe de grace was delivered by an ordinary MG, a bit later.

Are you sure you don't use hitpoints? :twisted:

[Hackworth]

Are you sure it didn't get hit previous to this event and destroyed at that time only to get hit again by MG fire and show as another event with the status remaining as it was before the MG fire, i.e. destroyed? Because, when they say they aren't using hit points, they aren't using hit points.

[Retro]

when they say they aren't using hit points, they aren't using hit points.

I was joking (well, trying to)

I watched the thing from the red side (was playing it through the mission editor). The RPG and KE hits were to the side, then the tank noticed the infantry which fired the rpg and turned towards them.. it looked plenty alive at that point.. I was looking forward to the coax mowing them down only to see the tank get destroyed by the MG fire :x

[Debaker]

Hows this for MG killing :? It goes through the wall, and the back windows of the Hummer, how could it destroy it?

[3Star]

7.62mm could do it. Depends on what the wall is made of. It hit the back window, shattering it. The shattered glass splintered, by fluke hitting the crew on the unprotected neck.

NTM

[Ssnake]

It may be that the impact vector in the event display is not quite accurate, depending on the time of flight of the bullet and the vehicle speed. I'm not sure here myself, I must confess. But once that it goes through the open window, there is a chance that it would kill the driver and the commander, at which point the vehicle is considered "killed".

[FurbO]

Well it is hollow armour.



Er as far as I know the armour on 'Leo 2a5' is 'spaced armour' that is to say it has the normal armour of a bog standard leo 2 and second layer added with a certain amount of space between to the two layer's to counter the effect of 'HEAT' type rounds....

regards

[FurbO]

Added: Also, could it be possibily related to every 3rd round being a tracer

Hmm, I thought that the standard mix for API/APIT and Ball/Tracer, at least so far as the U.S. is concerned, was 4 x 1.


ER in UK army it was/is 1to 1 for coax and 1to 4 for all other mg's

[GGTharos]

Is it possible that, on slow enough computers, or on a busy enough mission, you might have problems where the simulation 'step' time is such that the bullet passes through the armor from one step to the next, without properly detecting collision?

I've seen this happen in flight sims too, where enormous closure rates and a low enough computer would see the target fly right through the missile's proximity fuze field without detonating the missile.

[Ssnake]

It's something that I brought up in the internal discussion months ago, but Al assures me that this cannot be the right explanation. My only consolation is that it seems to be a rare occurrence, after all.