HEAT type penetration..

[Djuice]

What i know of the affects HEAT penetration, Warhead Size, Weapon Size and Survivability.

I test fired a SAGGER AT-3 9M14 with a penetration value of 40, and warhead size of 3 and weapon size of 1. The target was a Leopard 2A6 with frontal turret HEAT value of 130, with Survivability of 6.

100 Fired, 65 hit, 21 were non-penetrating, and 44 were sucessful. Average penetration value was 46 with highest @ 51 and lowest @ 12.

The next thing i did was decrease the warhead size to 2 and tested it again.

100 Fired, 67 hit, 22 were non-penetrating, and 45 were sucessful. Average penetration value was 47 with highest @ 53 and lowest @ 5.

What other settings affects how HEAT type penetration are calculated?

[Mobhack]

Djuice said:
What i know of the affects HEAT penetration, Warhead Size, Weapon Size and Survivability.

I test fired a SAGGER AT-3 9M14 with a penetration value of 40, and warhead size of 3 and weapon size of 1. The target was a Leopard 2A6 with frontal turret HEAT value of 130, with Survivability of 6.

100 Fired, 65 hit, 21 were non-penetrating, and 44 were sucessful. Average penetration value was 46 with highest @ 51 and lowest @ 12.

The next thing i did was decrease the warhead size to 2 and tested it again.

100 Fired, 67 hit, 22 were non-penetrating, and 45 were sucessful. Average penetration value was 47 with highest @ 53 and lowest @ 5.

What other settings affects how HEAT type penetration are calculated?

We are not allowed to tell you what the SSI-based formulae are, in any detail, due to contractual obligations with SSI on the release of the code.

1) HEAT penetration is the prime variable, naturally
2) Weapon size is used for reloading from ammo units, so is irrelevant to your testing.
3) Warhead size can add to penetration. So WH 3 can sometimes add up to 3 (possibly 2?) points.
4) Survivability has nothing to do with the penetration value, but affects post-penetration survival of the vehicle once perforated. It is therefore irrelevant to your test.
5) There is code in there for fuse failures for HEAT. HEAT pen will therefore be more variable than solid shot. Usually book value or lower - there is a very small chance of some overpen.

100 shots is not a very high statistical sample (your decrease of warhead size should show a slight overal reduction in pen, but at 100 sample points, this tiny factor can be wiped out by the HEAT pen variability).

Therefore - best to average over at least 100 succesful hits. So - throw away any misses, track hits and other non penetrating hits till you have 100 succesful strikes on target.

Cheers
Andy

[Marcello]

"5) There is code in there for fuse failures for HEAT. HEAT pen will therefore be more variable than solid shot. Usually book value or lower - there is a very small chance of some overpen"

Fuse failure or some others failure in multicharge weapons I can understand.It is an excellent feature.But when testing ATGMs I have found a surprising high number of overpenetrations beyond the
HEAT penetration + warhead size formula.Improved TOWs should have 80 + 6 as maximum but I found many penetrations well in excess of 90.For curiosity sake is there any real world factor that could make an HEAT warhead perform better than standard?

[Mobhack]

Probably a hit on a weak point - like a turret ring.

but generally with HEAT, you get less than book penetration (fuses get more reliable as time advances).

Cheers
Andy

[pdoktar]

I�ve found that overpentration too. Maybe it a psychological feature of my mind, but pen 100 milan 3s might get even 110 pens regularly. Sometimes smaller however. I don�t like the overpenetration feature, because I think that arms manufactures will put best possible penetration quotas in their brochures. So a missile should penetrate the given number if no weakspot messages.

[Marcello]

I am running a few tens of tests on this issue.
I am using the most up to date free version of the game.
I have purchased a squadron of Jeep mounted TOWs from the Gulf State OOB, unit 204.Then I checked the specs for the missile, an improve TOW.HEAT penetration 80, warhead size 6, as standard.Then I have purchased some of my fictional MBTs (so that I can test their resistance since I am at it).Put them in a small map and disable the tanks weapons.
Then I have advanced my tanks triggering the enemy fire.

So far the average penetration seems in the 88-93 range.
Possibly even a 100 but I am not 100% positive on that one.Then there are occasional 20,30 or so, the warhead malfuctions I take.The actual penetrations in the 80-86 range are few.
I will keep running the tests.Eventually can somebody else try similar tests, to see if maybe there is just something wrong with my game install or something?

EDIT
I am not taking in consideration the weakspot penetrations, the above is for the normal ones.

[Marcello]

Update
I have accumulated what must approximatively be 50-60 penetrations so far.The penetrations in the 80-86 range seems even less frequent than the warhead malfunctions so far.
If you want a more scientifical experiment, with maybe 50-100 (not 1000 of course)tests and the results for each written down, I am willing to do that, although it will take a few days.

[Mobhack]

As I think I said earlier - malfunctions/fuse failures reduce by decade post WW2. So later battles will not show the effect as with earlier.

I will run this through the debugger and check it out.

Andy

[Mobhack]

Ahah - much clearer once I reread the code

Improved TOW, therefore a dual charge and/or top attack ATGM. These get a bonus of 5+Random(Warhead Size) for the improved technology over straight HEAT added to pen.

There is a 5% chance of any HEAT round getting some of the Warhead Size added as over-pen. There is a 17% chance of under pen due to fuse failures etc.

Cheers
Andy

[Marcello]

Yes, it was an improved TOW, as I wrote, I should have emphasized that, my mistake.
So it works out as 80+6+5=91, which is more in line with the endless strings of 88-89-90-91 I have actually observed.
But I have seen some 93, a 94 and a 98, plus possibly a 100.Random overpenetration in addition to the above?