Jump to content


The Centurion's side skirts


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

CommitSudoku #1 Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:27 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10811 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    01-26-2013
Having witnessed some bizzare penetrations on my side skirts ever since I got the Centurion Mk I
I decided to look up the game mechanics and I found that Centurion drivers are basically being screwed over for having the side skirts.

Based on the info on: http://wiki.worldoft...ation_Mechanics

Quote

If a shell penetrates spaced armour, it continues along its normalized flight path into the vehicle. Once it impacts the hull armour, the remaining penetration potential (i.e. the original penetration potential minus the effective armour thickness of the spaced armour) is used to calculate whether the shell penetrates the hull proper.

Now its all nice and dandy, but with 6mm of spaced armor it means every shell bigger than 18mm in caliber will overmatch the sideskirt armor resulting in additional normalization:

Quote

If the shell's caliber is over 3 times greater than the nominal thickness of the armour, shell normalization is increased by that factor. For example, hitting 20mm of armour with a 120mm shell, your caliber overmatches the armour by a factor of six, so your shell is normalized six times more than it would be by default.

Given a minimum normalization amount of 8° for AP and APCR shells, in cases of overmatch your impact angle is effectively normalized by at least 24°. Since the actual impact angle cannot exceed 90°, in case of overmatch the normalized impact angle cannot be greater than 66°. That means that a ricochet at the point of impact becomes impossible. Note that if you impact spaced armour first, even if you penetrate that your shell may still ricochet off the underlying hull armour.

So a 76mm shell hitting the side skirt will get 12.7~ times the normal normalization which is between 4 and 5 degrees meaning even if the shell hits a nearly flat angle the normalization would just make it turn
and head directly for your 51mm side armor at 63 degrees(!) of normalization.
While I do realize you should minimize the amount of times you get in a centurion I still find it quite retarded you can't even angle in the slightest due to the overmatch game mechanic which just makes shooting the side at any angle more viable than shooting the front (even though the front is paper too).

Having the side skirts spaced armor removed would actually make angling with the centurion more viable than it is currently.

Edited by CommitSudoku, 28 February 2013 - 02:28 PM.


saffer001 #2 Posted 28 February 2013 - 05:17 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 20132 battles
  • 47
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011
I don't know about that, but I did defeat an E75 yesterday by sidescraping his shot in my Centurion Mk.1. He shot into the skirt armor I could clearly see it and it did no damage.

pagandk #3 Posted 01 March 2013 - 11:07 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33543 battles
  • 522
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-10-2012
Hmm interesting. Let me get this right..  What you are saying is that for example sidescraping with a centurion is pretty much pointless as the shells even at extreme angles will penetrate because hitting the very weak sideskirts (1st layer of spaced armor) causes overmatching/normalization to set in to such a degree that the shell (originally from extreme angle) will seem like coming "almost" straight on?

CommitSudoku #4 Posted 01 March 2013 - 01:51 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10811 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    01-26-2013
It seems like my theory is correct.
A friend and I just tested the Centurion Mk 7 against the stock M3 75mm gun of the M4 Sherman.
Even at a 10 degree angle (90 being perpendicular) he was able to penetrate the side skirt and damage my tank.
Although some of the shells were absorbed by the tracks, I imagine higher penetration shells (not a lousy stock cannon of a tier 5 tank)
will be able to damage the centurion more often than not.

View Postpagandk, on 01 March 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Hmm interesting. Let me get this right..  What you are saying is that for example sidescraping with a centurion is pretty much pointless as the shells even at extreme angles will penetrate because hitting the very weak sideskirts (1st layer of spaced armor) causes overmatching/normalization to set in to such a degree that the shell (originally from extreme angle) will seem like coming "almost" straight on?

Yes, here is a top down armor scheme of the Centurion armor with a trajectory of a shell hitting the side skirts according to my understanding
of the game mechanics of how AP rounds work (with overmatching and normalization).

Posted Image

Edited by CommitSudoku, 01 March 2013 - 02:13 PM.


McGreg #5 Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:01 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9575 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    07-11-2011
So what you are saying is that a paper-thin layer or metal makes a huge bullet travelling at a gazillion km/h turn almost 90 degrees to hit your side armor at a straight angle? If thats true then its the most retarded thing I have seen in this game. Ill test it myself but mechanics of overmatch would indicate it to be true.

pagandk #6 Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33543 battles
  • 522
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-10-2012
I would really like to test this theory aswell, if I get the time. It's funny I stumble on this post today, because yesterday I was wondering why I was being penetrated so easily doing a sidescraper manouver in that exact vehicle. Could be bad luck or just a big fail on WGs part. Would explain all the complaints from players regarding the armor on brits.

CommitSudoku #7 Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:24 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 10811 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    01-26-2013

View PostMcGreg, on 01 March 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

So what you are saying is that a paper-thin layer or metal makes a huge bullet travelling at a gazillion km/h turn almost 90 degrees to hit your side armor at a straight angle? If thats true then its the most retarded thing I have seen in this game. Ill test it myself but mechanics of overmatch would indicate it to be true.
Well according to the wiki the shell cannot normalize more than 66 degrees, but that still means it turns 66 degrees from the angle it hit (to a maximum of 90 degrees).
So yeah, that's pretty much what I am saying.

skileskale #8 Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:12 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 26893 battles
  • 94
  • [HSOP] HSOP
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010
Just grinded through the Cent 1, while it was a fun tank to play, its side armor was a real puzzle for me, penned from extreme angles by almost anyone. This post gave a good reason why, thanks!

_Buck_Kite_ #9 Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:24 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 29575 battles
  • 135
  • [RTRUK] RTRUK
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011
The side skirts or 'Bazooka Plates as British Tank crews named them, WHERE and stiil ARE spaced armour in it's primitive form.  One of the most vulnerable parts of a tank are its sides, where the armour is not quite as thick as the front.  Their use have continued post HEAT rounds for obvious reasons.

IGL #10 Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 36358 battles
  • 1,512
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011
this penentration behavior should be changed (read: fixed!) ASAP. Its the same crap for Cent 7/1 and even 4202.
WG cant be seriously bringing out tanks that are actually turning auto-bouncers into damaging penetrations. Joke!

Edited by IGL, 01 March 2013 - 07:31 PM.


pagandk #11 Posted 01 March 2013 - 11:24 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33543 battles
  • 522
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-10-2012
I hope this is brought to the attention of the devs. That's a really horrible oversight... sideskirts need to go.

SaltyCucumber #12 Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:08 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 18862 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012
I see things like this and I think about them and then think if I should continue giving money for premium to WG. Centurion's wrong scale was also mentioned to the devs and they did nothing so far.

McGreg #13 Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:01 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9575 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    07-11-2011
I tested it yesterday with a friend in a cromwel. Frome a sidescraping position every hit penetrated armored skirts but only 1 or 2 dealt damage, out of maybe 30 shots fired. So fortunately its not that bad. Still, I wouldnt recommend sidescraping in centurion, this tank is just not made for close combat.

xalator #14 Posted 04 March 2013 - 09:11 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 7669 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013
.....

pagandk #15 Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33543 battles
  • 522
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-10-2012

View PostMcGreg, on 04 March 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

I tested it yesterday with a friend in a cromwel. Frome a sidescraping position every hit penetrated armored skirts but only 1 or 2 dealt damage, out of maybe 30 shots fired. So fortunately its not that bad. Still, I wouldnt recommend sidescraping in centurion, this tank is just not made for close combat.

Doesn't sound too bad then, but what was the angle?

McGreg #16 Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:47 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9575 battles
  • 50
  • Member since:
    07-11-2011
Around autobouce angle, none of the shots autobounced though. So sideskirts are automatically overmatched as suggested, fortunately normalisation is not hitting sides as bad as suspected.

starlight2098 #17 Posted 04 March 2013 - 11:03 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12175 battles
  • 258
  • Member since:
    08-26-2011
Well, this makes a lot of very annoying sense.  Sigh.

To think;  I actually thought I was quite (painfully) familiar with all of this horror of a tank's flaws.  97k exp to 7/1...  Which I'm sure has this issue as well.

Darkmancer #18 Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:25 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 46614 battles
  • 431
  • [S-I-G] S-I-G
  • Member since:
    03-30-2011
Get 2 friends.  Load up a training match on the port map.  In the cent  drive to a corner of a building and drive the front of the tank flush into the building as to basically extend the buildings wall with your tank side.

Use the td to find a angle he can pen you with AP where you believe he should bounce preferably with his gun as far left/right as it can go.  Get him to press x to lock his position.

Now replace the cent with another flat sided tank.  As long as he is flush against the building the shot angles should be the same if one bounces and the the other doesn't it's a bug.

SaltyCucumber #19 Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:36 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 18862 battles
  • 8
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012
I did some testing, here are the results. KV-1's 85mm gun has 120mm average penetration.

Posted Image

pagandk #20 Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:14 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33543 battles
  • 522
  • [AOS] AOS
  • Member since:
    04-10-2012

View PostSuperSrbin159, on 04 March 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

I did some testing, here are the results. KV-1's 85mm gun has 120mm average penetration.

Posted Image

A picture says a 1000 words :P All I can say is, OUCH!

As I understand it, but I may be wrong:

According to wiki, autobounce will happen at normalized angle of 70%, UNLESS you are hitting external modules (like tracks). On the Centurion you will be hitting the sideskirts instead of the tracks, and then you will most likely see an overmatch (since pretty much any cannon caliber is over "3 times greater than the nominal thickness" of the sideskirts), and then the impact angle will be effectively normalized by at least (3x8°=) 24° (up to 66°)
Anyone know the armor thickness of the sideskirts?
If they are 20mm thick, you would get a normalized angle of (gun caliber divided with sideskirt armor times 8°): (85 mm/20mm) x 8° = 34° (instead of 11° ?)
If they are 10mm thick, you would get normalized angle of (gun caliber divided with sideskirt armor times 8°): (85 mm/10mm) x 8° = 68° ->  (max) 66° (instead of 11° ?)

And if you are suppose to add the 34° (or 66°) to the first angle of 11° it's even worse :/

I'm not 100% sure of the calculations, but there sure seems to be a major problem, in case you have a very thin spaced layer on the outside, because of the overmatching.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users