Tank Chart

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Rocksitter]

 This is something i talked to hicks about on vent, I have a pretty good start with like 10-12 tanks in my chart with this same format basic stats....

 let me know if you want it...

[Rainbows]

http://i.imgur.com/ZpKvJ.png

Here is a preview of the chart I'm working on. Depending on how much I feel like working on it, it will probably be done later today or tomorrow. It doesn't have every single piece of statistical information available, but I excluded the least important ones for the sake of space, readability, and simplicity.

I was really just making this chart for fun, but it could be a useful cheat sheet to have up on my second monitor while playing, as you can't exactly go and reference the RGDs in the middle of a game.

[Zamochit]

thats pretty good but i dont understand the armor percentages and sml splash

[smurfORnot]

how do you add numbers for penetration? Since it's different for different armor tipes.

[Rainbows]

For armour and penetration values, I simply use the baseline medium tanks. Armour is percentage of shots deflected against 75mm Sherman or 75mm Panzer IV, and penetration is percentage of shots that penetrate against Sherman and Panzer IV. It's impossible to include all of the target types in a chart like this, so I believe the relative percentage against medium tanks is fine. For example, the 76mm is roughly 90% better against the PzIV than the 75mm... this is also the case against almost everything else, like the Panther and Tiger. Not all guns are exactly relative against all armour types like that, but I think it gives you enough information to be relevant. I have no intentions of making a weighted average for penetration because it introduces subjectivity, takes considerably more time, and the upside isn't -that- high.

S/M/L is short/medium/long. At the short range for splash, the shell does full damage. At the medium range for splash, the shell does reduced damage. At long range for the splash, the shell does further reduced damage. So, taking the 75mm Sherman as an example, it does full damage to anything within 0.25 metres of where the shell lands, reduced damage to anything within 1 metre but not within 0.25 metres, and further reduced damage to anything within 3 metres but not within 1 metre.

[Spartan_Marine88]

how do you add numbers for penetration? Since it's different for different armor tipes.

personally i would go straight High/Med/low for the purposes of a chart

High penetration means good for heavy/super heavy and below

medium for med armor and below

low mainly vehicles

[Rainbows]

I'm not a fan of that because it's not specific enough. The 76mm is SIGNIFICANTLY better against medium tanks than the 75mm, but is still pretty bad against heavy tanks.

However, I might try to find some sort of alternate implementation to what I have now, because of something I didn't realise. Some guns have higher penetration against heavy tanks yet lower penetration against medium tanks than others, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and will largely defeat the purpose of picking medium tanks as the baseline. An example of this is the 90mm Pershing vs. 76mm Sherman - the 90mm Pershing would have an 86% penetration value, yet it's twice as good as the 76mm against heavier tanks.

[Hicks58]

Your presentation is a lot better than anything I could come up with tbh.

I have to question where your getting your statistics from though, because both Sherman variants have 6 second reloads and the splash radius is identical apart from the long range area (Making it 0.25/1/3 for 75mm and 0.25/1/1.5 for 76mm). Another thing with the splash would be to note the damage drop off over it's range, for both Sherman variants it's 1/0.5/0.35.

You might want to mention moving accuracy as some get it worse than others. 0.75 on Shermans while Pershings get a nasty 0.5. Sight range is another factor, because for some units like the M18 it's a make or break factor on the unit's efficiency. Having 46 sight and 45 range means it can kite 40 range tanks alone, while the M10 needs assistance for the same feat.

Turn speed of a tank is also pretty important to get on there as tanks which can turn faster tend to micro better. Throwing it in with the Speed and Acceleration should be easy enough.

Finally, I wouldn't attempt to make a baseline 'penetration percentage'. It would be simpler to make a secondary table with the specific target values.

Hope that helps.

[LeoPhone]

http://dow2.info/coh/Category_American_Vehicles.html
http://dow2.info/coh/Vehicle_M10_Tank_Destroyer.html
http://dow2.info/coh/Weapon_3in_Tank_Destroyer.html

[Zamochit]

I'm not a fan of that because it's not specific enough. The 76mm is SIGNIFICANTLY better against medium tanks than the 75mm, but is still pretty bad against heavy tanks.

However, I might try to find some sort of alternate implementation to what I have now, because of something I didn't realise. Some guns have higher penetration against heavy tanks yet lower penetration against medium tanks than others, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and will largely defeat the purpose of picking medium tanks as the baseline. An example of this is the 90mm Pershing vs. 76mm Sherman - the 90mm Pershing would have an 86% penetration value, yet it's twice as good as the 76mm against heavier tanks.

tbh, tiger was easily penetrated irl than a panther or sherman because of armor slope despite having thicker armor.

[Hicks58]

Panther armour was better than Tiger armour, but Sherman armour was NOT better than Tiger armour.

Either way, this is realism talk and kinda off topic lol.

[Rainbows]

The thing is, even if Sherman armour WERE better than Tiger armour, EVERYTHING would be worse against it, not just some things randomly being better and others being worse. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a gameplay point. But yeah, this is not really relevant.

[Spartan_Marine88]

tbh, tiger was easily penetrated irl than a sherman because of armor slope despite having thicker armor.

Are you high?

[AmPM]

tbh, tiger was easily penetrated irl than a panther or sherman because of armor slope despite having thicker armor.

You are complete fail.

At anything other than incredibly short range the Tiger and Panther were both invulnerable to frontal shots. ON the other side, they both had weapons that were easily capable of knocking out any Allied tank at 2000m+.

[Spartan_Marine88]

At anything other than incredibly short range the Tiger and Panther were both invulnerable to frontal shots. ON the other side, they both had weapons that were easily capable of knocking out any Allied tank at 2000m+.

Firefly could quite easily penetrate, the 17 pdr could knock out the tiger from long distances.

[AmPM]

Which is not a Sherman =) Just like a Hetzer is not a Pz38t despite being on the same chassis.

[Tymathee]

could've sworn the firefly was called the Sherman Firefly, not just a "firefly"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

the m-10 is on a sherman chassis but it's not called a Sherman wolverine or sherman m-10

[Spartan_Marine88]

Tym for once has a point, the Firefly was an actual variant of the sherman, more of an upgun then something sharing the chassis

[Hicks58]

Funnily enough, the standard 76mm upgun provided by the americans would put a hole in a Tiger, given the right range.

Though the Brits did have a tendancy of taking their designs and making them a shit ton better. Firefly, Achilles, etc. :p

[Rainbows]

http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=22878.0

My completed tank chart, in its own thread because this one has completely and totally derailed.