[QUOTE=Raidyr;46814389]Can someone sum up the differences between arcade/realism/simulator when it comes to ground forces? A friend asked and I realized I didn't really know off the top of my head.[/QUOTE]
Arcade mode have assisted cross-hair and vehicles are easier to maneuver. RB and SB are pretty similar except in SB you can't see names and signs such as the AAA, enemies etc on the map and onscreen.
I'm not sure if they've done anything different with handling and damage in SB GF.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46814389]Can someone sum up the differences between arcade/realism/simulator when it comes to ground forces? A friend asked and I realized I didn't really know off the top of my head.[/QUOTE]
Arcade:
- Has a crosshair that shows you where the shell will land after drop from gravity. This makes it much easier for long shots and shells with low velocity like the KV-2 howitzer.
- Tanks have faster acceleration, quicker turning, etc. Basically, they feel a lot lighter and more nimble.
- Planes are available to fly at seemingly random times throughout the mission. Anyone can volunteer to fly for a temporary amount of time. (I don't know if it happens for a specific reason or not.)
- Teams are completely mixed with no nation specific sides.
- Name tags show up on top of all enemies that you have in your line of sight.
- Third person view behind the tank.
Realistic:
- The aiming crosshair is gone. All gravity compensation must be done manually.
- Tanks have more realistic (aka. slower and heavier) movement, especially noticeable on large tanks.
- Nametags still show up on top of all enemies in line of sight.
- Damage seems more realistic and less forgiving than AB. (not sure if this is actually different)
- The random plane spawns are gone, but you get respawn points based on getting kills and capping points that allow you to respawn in either another vehicle or a plane.
- From what I've seen teams are usually nation specific, but every once in a while they will still be mixed. I'm not sure if this is a temporary change to account for the weird numbers playing US during release.
- Third person view behind the tank.
Simulation:
- First and foremost, the view is now from the commander's hatch right above the tank. So no more looking over objects to spot enemies. The limited view makes flanking a lot easier.
- Nametags no longer show up over the heads of enemies, but they still show up as a blip on the mini-map when in line of sight. So you know the general direction that they're at, but you have to actually find them by sight to shoot.
- I feel like the damage model is even less forgiving. I seem to get a lot more one hit kills in this mode.
- Teams seem to always be nation specific.
- There are no respawns in different vehicles.
[vid]http://a.pomf.se/fzpdca.mp4[/vid]
pow
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46814853]
pow[/QUOTE]
War thunder is such a cool game.
[url]http://tankarchives.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/100-mm-gun-vs-tiger-ii.html[/url]
spalling modelling in this game when
i want to slaughter king tiger crewmen easily
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8512731/War%20Thunder/shot%202014.12.29%2014.01.43.jpg[/t]
Something happened to my Panther's tracks. (shadowplay was off dammit)
Yeah I give up on the events. The vehicles are tempting and I have no ill feelings towards Gaijin for setting the requirements so high, but it's not worth the effort to me, doubly so when they admitted in advance the vehicles will be obtainable in another way, eventually. I will gladly give them the cash for them eventually, instead, if they turn out to be worth it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46814711]Arcade:
- Tanks have faster acceleration, quicker turning, etc. Basically, they feel a lot lighter and more nimble.
- Planes are available to fly at seemingly random times throughout the mission. Anyone can volunteer to fly for a temporary amount of time. (I don't know if it happens for a specific reason or not.)
tanks.
[/quote]
-Turret rotate and gun elevation is also faster as well
-Planes are a killstreak of sorts. You can pilot a fighter after one ground kill, an attacker after 2, and a bomber after 3. Air battles are initiated by a player with an attacker or bomber streak.
[quote]
Simulation:
- First and foremost, the view is now from the commander's hatch right above the tank. [B]So no more looking over objects to spot enemies.[/b]The limited view makes flanking a lot easier.
[/QUOTE]
Just FYI you cant do this in the other modes unless someone else can see the enemy as well. If no one in your tank crew can see an enemy and that enemy isnt spotted by a teammate, they disappear from view.
[editline]29th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Araknid;46815110][url]http://tankarchives.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/100-mm-gun-vs-tiger-ii.html[/url]
spalling modelling in this game when
i want to slaughter king tiger crewmen easily[/QUOTE]
Spalling is modeled isnt it? At least that appears to be how HE shells and some solid shot AP rounds do damage.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46815445]-Turret rotate and gun elevation is also faster as well
-Planes are a killstreak of sorts. You can pilot a fighter after one ground kill, an attacker after 2, and a bomber after 3. Air battles are initiated by a player with an attacker or bomber streak.
Just FYI you cant do this in the other modes unless someone else can see the enemy as well. If no one in your tank crew can see an enemy and that enemy isnt spotted by a teammate, they disappear from view.
[editline]29th December 2014[/editline]
Spalling is modeled isnt it? At least that appears to be how HE shells and some solid shot AP rounds do damage.[/QUOTE]
In case of HE it's shrapnel (even on not explicitly FRAG rounds, the shell casing was always quite heavy and killed mostly by shrapnel rather than shockwave, when it came to both vehicles and personnel).
In case of solid AP rounds it's spalling caused by the round breaking through the plate. There's no spalling if the shell fails to penetrate/ricochets.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46815607]In case of HE it's shrapnel (even on not explicitly FRAG rounds, the shell casing was always quite heavy and killed mostly by shrapnel rather than shockwave, when it came to both vehicles and personnel).
[/quote]
So it's the shell's shrapnel penetraing the armor? Because Ive definitely had rounds explode on the outside of a tanks armor and cause fragmentation in a shotgun pattern to kill the crew inside. Ive not done much research on it, but I cant imagine shell fragments have enough kinetic energy to actually penetrate most tank armor on their own.
[quote]
In case of solid AP rounds it's spalling caused by the round breaking through the plate. There's no spalling if the shell fails to penetrate/ricochets.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah but that's still spall being modeled isnt it? v:v:v
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46815627]Well yeah but that's still spall being modeled isnt it? v:v:v[/QUOTE]
It's ambiguous and it might be either armor spall as well as just shards of shattered shells, either way it's something else than spalling that should occur regardless of penetration (or actually even more so if penetration doesn't happen).
[editline]29th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46815627]Ive not done much research on it, but I cant imagine shell fragments have enough kinetic energy to actually penetrate most tank armor on their own.
[/QUOTE]
As counter intuitive as it is, I honestly don't doubt the shrapnel has the few mm of penetration the game attributes it.
If explosion of a HE shell creating fragment that can penetrate 20mm thick tops of WWII tanks seems weird to you, read up on the technology of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator"]explosively formed penetrators[/URL]. These basically use a shaped charge to produce a single fragment of metal with calculated shape, that can easily penetrate through [I]hundreds[/I] of millimeters of RHA. Considering some Iraqi insurgents can build an EFP IED out of a bucket, a copper plate, a bit of explosive, and destroy an M1 Abrams with it, I think that people underestimate the potency of metal being flung around by explosives.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46815699]
If explosion of a HE shell creating fragment that can penetrate 20mm thick tops of WWII tanks seems weird to you, read up on the technology of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator"]explosively formed penetrators[/URL]. These basically use a shaped charge to produce a single fragment of metal with calculated shape, that can easily penetrate through [I]hundreds[/I] of millimeters of RHA. Considering some Iraqi insurgents can build an EFP IED out of a bucket, a copper plate, a bit of explosive, and destroy an M1 Abrams with it, I think that people underestimate the potency of metal being flung around by explosives.[/QUOTE]
An EFP is more akin to the shell from a gun than shrapnel, IMO. The chemical energy in a HE shell isnt really dedicated to pushing shrapnel at high velocity, and much of the energy just goes into the ground/air. The propellant in a gun/the forming charge in an EFP dedicates the vast majority of its chemical energy specifically to moving/forming and moving the projectile, so its understandable that they have higher penetration abilities.
Im surprised by the way shrapnel penetrates in game because generally shrapnel is regarded as being the easiest of the battlefield projectiles to stop (soft armor/thin plate armor is usually used to stop shell fragments).
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46815928]An EFP is more akin to the shell from a gun than shrapnel, IMO. The chemical energy in a HE shell isnt really dedicated to pushing shrapnel at high velocity, and much of the energy just goes into the ground/air. The propellant in a gun/the forming charge in an EFP dedicates the vast majority of its chemical energy specifically to moving/forming and moving the projectile, so its understandable that they have higher penetration abilities.
Im surprised by the way shrapnel penetrates in game because generally shrapnel is regarded as being the easiest of the battlefield projectiles to stop (soft armor/thin plate armor is usually used to stop shell fragments).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46815699]It's ambiguous and it might be either armor spall as well as just shards of shattered shells, either way it's something else than spalling that should occur regardless of penetration (or actually even more so if penetration doesn't happen).
[editline]29th December 2014[/editline]
As counter intuitive as it is, I honestly don't doubt the shrapnel has the few mm of penetration the game attributes it.
If explosion of a HE shell creating fragment that can penetrate 20mm thick tops of WWII tanks seems weird to you, read up on the technology of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator"]explosively formed penetrators[/URL]. These basically use a shaped charge to produce a single fragment of metal with calculated shape, that can easily penetrate through [I]hundreds[/I] of millimeters of RHA. Considering some Iraqi insurgents can build an EFP IED out of a bucket, a copper plate, a bit of explosive, and destroy an M1 Abrams with it, I think that people underestimate the potency of metal being flung around by explosives.[/QUOTE]
Those are HEAT shells and speed doesnt matter - unless its so big and heavy that itself can penetrate - and are very different them HE, they are a conical hollow shell lined up with a thin layer of metal, copper on most cases, and HE; upon detonation the cone is crushed at such high pressure that the thin metal layer sprays out as a fast jet of molten metal penetrating tank, it looses power very fast and as such cant leave the interior, ricochetting arround the inside.
Shrapnel itself is not that damaging against tanks, its not shaped like a proper penetrator and they follow a random route and I don't know of any shell casing being made out of tungsten BUT tank top and bottom are much thinner and any sufficiently fast metal thingy can penetrate it.
High caliber HE shells kills by the explosion power and penetration due to its massive weight, combined with spalling if the tank has no spall liner. SQUASH kills tanks by spalling.
[QUOTE=dreukrag;46816036]Those are HEAT shells and speed doesnt matter - unless its so big and heavy that itself can penetrate - and are very different them HE, they are a conical hollow shell lined up with a thin layer of metal, copper on most cases, and HE; upon detonation the cone is crushed at such high pressure that the thin metal layer sprays out as a fast jet of molten metal penetrating tank, it looses power very fast and as such cant leave the interior, ricochetting arround the inside.
[/quote]
EFPs and HEAT shells are totally different. An EFP is an actual solid projectile formed and propelled by a shaped charge, whereas a HEAT shell is literally a conical shaped charge that is propelled at a target. The shaped charge component of an EFP doesnt actually do any direct damage to a target.
[quote]
SQUASH kills tanks by spalling.[/QUOTE]
That'd be HESH, not SQUASH.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46815928]An EFP is more akin to the shell from a gun than shrapnel, IMO. The chemical energy in a HE shell isnt really dedicated to pushing shrapnel at high velocity, and much of the energy just goes into the ground/air. The propellant in a gun/the forming charge in an EFP dedicates the vast majority of its chemical energy specifically to moving/forming and moving the projectile, so its understandable that they have higher penetration abilities.
[/quote]
That's actually not true. An EFP charges almost always lack any kind of container that would contain the explosion and direct it, the thin shell of the EFP usually gives to the explosion immediately and is there mainly to protect the charge from the damage.[quote]
Im surprised by the way shrapnel penetrates in game because generally shrapnel is regarded as being the easiest of the battlefield projectiles to stop (soft armor/thin plate armor is usually used to stop shell fragments).[/QUOTE]
There's difference between ambient shrapnel that gets flung around during a large scale artillery shelling and shrapnel that travels half a meter from the point of impact on tank turret to the turret hull top. Since the shrapnel isn't shaped and usually rotates all kind of wonky, the effective penetration drops off very rapidly, but at close up, the energy is considerable.
[editline]29th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=dreukrag;46816036]Those are HEAT shells and speed doesnt matter - unless its so big and heavy that itself can penetrate - and are very different them HE, they are a conical hollow shell lined up with a thin layer of metal, copper on most cases, and HE; upon detonation the cone is crushed at such high pressure that the thin metal layer sprays out as a fast jet of molten metal penetrating tank, it looses power very fast and as such cant leave the interior, ricochetting arround the inside.
Shrapnel itself is not that damaging against tanks, its not shaped like a proper penetrator and they follow a random route and I don't know of any shell casing being made out of tungsten BUT tank top and bottom are much thinner and any sufficiently fast metal thingy can penetrate it.
High caliber HE shells kills by the explosion power and penetration due to its massive weight, combined with spalling if the tank has no spall liner. SQUASH kills tanks by spalling.[/QUOTE]
Click on the link in my post. I am [I]not[/I] talking about HEAT shells.
[editline]29th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46815928]
Im surprised by the way shrapnel penetrates in game because generally shrapnel is regarded as being the easiest of the battlefield projectiles to stop (soft armor/thin plate armor is usually used to stop shell fragments).[/QUOTE]
I have read something [url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Who+says+dumb+artillery+rounds+cant+kill+armor%3f-a097722805]interesting on that topic[/url], earlier.
Basically for decades, American army thought that explosive artillery is worthless against armor, while Soviets thought it wasn't. It's completely odd that they managed to keep completely different opinion on that matter for so long.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46816054]EFPs and HEAT shells are totally different. An EFP is an actual solid projectile formed and propelled by a shaped charge, whereas a HEAT shell is literally a conical shaped charge that is propelled at a target. The shaped charge component of an EFP doesnt actually do any direct damage to a target.
That'd be HESH, not SQUASH.[/QUOTE]
Yeah sorry, but anyway, huge HE shells are very damaging:
[t]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6HVPrFhwUM4/Uv4xaGs8_wI/AAAAAAAACfU/WaoXWR4ZJ6Q/s1600/isu-cats-1.jpg[/t]
152mm HE
Tough I dunno how often tanks were killed in WW2 by artillery hitting them on the top, the armor on top of some tanks engine deck is ridicously heavy.
Anyone got the M19, if so, how does it plays? I love the american AAA line so far, looking forward to getting one.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46816088]That's actually not true. An EFP charges almost always lack any kind of container that would contain the explosion and direct it, the thin shell of the EFP usually gives to the explosion immediately and is there mainly to protect the charge from the damage.
[/QUOTE]
I gotta imagine that the case retains its integrity long enough to direct the explosion towards the liner, or that the liner at least has less integrity than the casing, otherwise the explosion wouldn't do a very good job of forming/propelling the penetrator.
I remember reading something in a handbook from Rheinmetall that implied that the casing on some variety of EFP mine survived but I might be mis-remembering that.
[QUOTE=dreukrag;46816124]Yeah sorry, but anyway, huge HE shells are very damaging:
[t]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6HVPrFhwUM4/Uv4xaGs8_wI/AAAAAAAACfU/WaoXWR4ZJ6Q/s1600/isu-cats-1.jpg[/t]
152mm HE
Tough I dunno how often tanks were killed in WW2 by artillery hitting them on the top, the armor on top of some tanks engine deck is ridicously heavy.
Anyone got the M19, if so, how does it plays? I love the american AAA line so far, looking forward to getting one.[/QUOTE]
It's like dispensing 400 rounds of pure freedom continuously until whatever you are pointing at is liberated into a flaming ball of wreckage.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46816088]
I have read something [url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Who+says+dumb+artillery+rounds+cant+kill+armor%3f-a097722805]interesting on that topic[/url], earlier.
Basically for decades, American army thought that explosive artillery is worthless against armor, while Soviets thought it wasn't. It's completely odd that they managed to keep completely different opinion on that matter for so long.[/QUOTE]
I've always been curious about the effects of German artillery on the KV tanks. You often hear it was the only way they could stop them sometimes but I've never seen a ballistic analysis/detailed reports on the damage.
Nope, I guess the casing usually gives out before the penetrator is fully formed, thats pretty whack.
I wonder what would happen if you had an EFP with a case that was intended to survive the blast, It'd blow the platter apart before it could form a penetrator I guess?
Wasn't there anti-concrete shells at one point (I seem to remember the KV-2 getting it in addition to HE). Those are pretty fun, it's basically HE with a much thinner casing and a delayed fuse. The round hits the target, the explosives splatter and spread out over a large area, then the delayed fuse activates.
Useful for blowing holes in concrete bunkers and making them structurally unstable, and as it turns out you don't actually need to penetrate a tank's armor to transfer energy into it. Anything attached to that side of the tank (rivets, etc) is going to break off and ricochet around inside as soon as the explosives go off.
[QUOTE=TrafficMan;46816270]Wasn't there anti-concrete shells at one point (I seem to remember the KV-2 getting it in addition to HE). Those are pretty fun, it's basically HE with a much thinner casing and a delayed fuse. The round hits the target, the explosives splatter and spread out over a large area, then the delayed fuse activates.
Useful for blowing holes in concrete bunkers and making them structurally unstable, and as it turns out you don't actually need to penetrate a tank's armor to transfer energy into it. Anything attached to that side of the tank (rivets, etc) is going to break off and ricochet around inside as soon as the explosives go off.[/QUOTE]
I thought the Russian 152mm anti-concrete rounds had a very heavy, thick, pointy casing and then a smaller explosive charge with a delayed fuse. Never heard of the explosive splatter part :v:
[editline]29th December 2014[/editline]
[quote]The G-530 HEAC anti-concrete shell had a muzzle velocity of 457 m/s when fired with the "first" charge. At a range of one kilometer it had a 358 m/s terminal velocity and was able to punch through up to 80 centimeters of reinforced concrete before detonating a TNT charge which increased the total penetration to 114 centimeters. The G-530 could not be fired with a "full" charge without putting the crew at risk of having the shell explode in the barrel. A special version of the shell, the G-530Sh, was developed to allow use with the full charge.[/quote]
Nothing about a splattering explosives, you sure you arent thinking of HESH/HEP demolition rounds?
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46816284]I thought the Russian 152mm anti-concrete rounds had a very heavy, thick, pointy casing and then a smaller explosive charge with a delayed fuse. Never heard of the explosive splatter part :v:[/QUOTE]
The place were I got those images from shows the aftermath of the 152mm anti-concrete:
(This is the EXIT hole by the way)
[t]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZSCVgPuIQDs/Uv4xbG2N6pI/AAAAAAAACfg/pe5JI2xbV_U/s1600/isu-cats-5.jpg[/t]
[url]http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/suisu-152-vs-german-big-cats.html[/url]
Guess anything big enough can be used as an AP shell
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46815198]Yeah I give up on the events. The vehicles are tempting and I have no ill feelings towards Gaijin for setting the requirements so high, but it's not worth the effort to me, doubly so when they admitted in advance the vehicles will be obtainable in another way, eventually. I will gladly give them the cash for them eventually, instead, if they turn out to be worth it.[/QUOTE]
I didn't either until I logged in today, only to realize that I actually now have to do things twice. The third tank task was "40 kills while driving PzKpfw IV". Today for the 6th task, the requirement is "40 kills while driving German Medium Tanks". It doesn't carry over from the previous task. It's basically like being penalized for keeping up with the event. The chance of it happening earlier crossed my mind, but I thought "No, that would be stupid of them. People would be pissed if they had to do the same thing multiple times just because they did it earlier."
[QUOTE=LittleDogX;46816313]I didn't either until I logged in today, only to realize that I actually now have to do things twice. The third tank task was "40 kills while driving PzKpfw IV". Today for the 6th task, the requirement is "40 kills while driving German Medium Tanks". It doesn't carry over from the previous task. It's basically like being penalized for keeping up with the event. The chance of it happening earlier crossed my mind, but I thought "No, that would be stupid of them. People would be pissed if they had to do the same thing multiple times just because they did it earlier."[/QUOTE]
Im betting that there is gonna be a bunch of crossover, actually. I mean hell, they cant do anything with the US tree involving vehicle classes (apart from heavies) that wouldn't involve crossover with task #4.
[editline]29th December 2014[/editline]
at least they are sticking to kills this time and not wins
I swear those "GET 10 VICTORIES" challenges make me want to throw my computer out the window
[QUOTE=LittleDogX;46816313]I didn't either until I logged in today, only to realize that I actually now have to do things twice. The third tank task was "40 kills while driving PzKpfw IV". Today for the 6th task, the requirement is "40 kills while driving German Medium Tanks". It doesn't carry over from the previous task. It's basically like being penalized for keeping up with the event. The chance of it happening earlier crossed my mind, but I thought "No, that would be stupid of them. People would be pissed if they had to do the same thing multiple times just because they did it earlier."[/QUOTE]
It also doesn't help that they picked what is in my opinion the worst and least fun line in the game.
I'm getting really tired of shooting ammo racks 4 shots in a row and getting nothing only to get one shot by everything (either dying or being completely disabled).
[t]http://i.imgur.com/GxN90Hu.jpg[/t]
Fuck...
[QUOTE=sgman91;46814711]Arcade:
Realistic:
Simulation:[/QUOTE]
I don't know whether to rate you heart or winner but wow, this is way more detailed than I was expecting. I didn't know half of these myself. Thanks.
so i started flying the yak-9t again after a long hiatus
god i love blowing up stuff with the ns-37
What happened to releasing new US tanks every few days? It seems more like every couple weeks. I have to face them so much that they might as well be released.
[editline]29th December 2014[/editline]
Also, got the 40 german medium kills and only got 2 wins through it all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
