Leaderboard

  1. Godman_82

    Godman_82

    Knight of the Sea


    • Points

      714

    • Content count

      2,913


  2. Stona

    Stona

    Community Manager


    • Points

      434

    • Content count

      12,446


  3. Smin1080p

    Smin1080p

    Community Manager


    • Points

      319

    • Content count

      12,628


  4. MH4UAstragon

    MH4UAstragon

    Admiral of the Fleet


    • Points

      286

    • Content count

      12,881



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 16/07/18 in all areas

  1. 48 points
    Hi, I was trying to make some sort of damage calculator (for my own use) of various ammo types. For this, I took a part of the code placed in damagemodel.blk file, and tried to put it into spreadsheet. I've noticed something weird about post pen damage of APDS ammunition, that might be partially responsible for poor damage dealt by this ammo. Some of You already know this, but: - long time ago post pen damage of all solid shots was very bad - Gaijin created new damage model, and first it was tested on US 120 mm AP rounds (M103 and T34) - some time after that, this new (and far better) damage model was assigned to all solid AP rounds - and again, some time later, it was also assigned to APDS, but... not 100% the same This is the code for AP damage: and here it is for APDS As You can see, AP damage model have 5 cones of shrapnels. 3 cones for shell fragmentation, and 2 cones for armor fragments. Shell shatters distribution of fragments (countportion) is 10% for 1st cone, 30% for 2nd cone and 60% for 3rd. Armor shatters distribution - 40% for 1st cone, and 60% for the second. Now. APDS - shell shatters distribution - 15% for 1st cone, 30% for 2nd, and 60% for 3rd. Yeah, it gives 105%. But let's leave that now, it's minor thing. Most interesting part is this: APDS - armor shatters distribution - 40% for 1st cone, and.... And 60% goes nowhere, because there is no second cone. It looks like it is copied from AP armor shatters code, and someone decided to remove one of the cones (the weaker one, but still), but did not changed the distribution! So there is some amount of fragments calculated (more about it below), and 40% is assigned to one cone of shatters, and rest is just going nowhere. Let's add the fact, that APDS fragments damage value reaches max when residual pen value is 200 mm or more, while for AP it is only 70 mm, and we can understand why APDS is so weak compared to AP. Example - 75 mm round, 7,6kg weight, against 100 mm of armor, and having 100 mm of residual penetration value. AP post pen damage - total count of 70 fragments, having 1316 damage points (all together) APDS post pen damage - 49 fragments, 587 damage points As a cherry on top, APHE post pen damage (75 mm round, 7,6 kg mass, against 100 mm armor, 100 mm residual pen, 65 grams of filler) Post pen damage - 51 fragments / 585 damage HE "Fireball" - 217 fragments / 1903 damage Other differences:
  2. 46 points
    Before I get started, this issue pertains to all game modes in which you can fly an aircraft, but my gripes and concerns pertain to AB where I believe this should not belong. A couple of months ago, a "feature" had been introduced into the damage models of all aircraft in the game that made it so that when your pilot was hit, along with the pilot being red or orange in the damage indicator, your plane would be rendered useless. It takes as little as a single .50cal hit for this to happen, and from my experience will happen around half the games that I participate in (AB Air). Having a red pilot is worse than having your tail control cut, as it gives you about 5-10% control over your planes control surfaces, making you useless. I have attempted to land while having a red pilot, just to crash into a mountain, with landing flaps making 0 impact upon my lift. For me, I think this "feature" has no place in AB, or at least needs to be thought out better before being implemented. This alone has driven me away from playing AB air for the last months. At this point, if I were to receive a hit to my aircraft which hits my pilot, I rather just die than having the frustration of having no control over my aircraft after a single stray bullet hitting. I have a couple of suggestions to make in which I think could remedy this issue. Remove this horrible "feature" entirely from the game, and don't look back Make pilot vitality actually count for something, i.e a maximum vitality level crew means that if you receive a hit on your pilot that makes it red or orange, you will feel little to no damage while lower level crews will In the very least, reduce the effects of the red/orange pilot by 80-90%. It is simply way too strong Some people may argue that it makes sense to be part of the game. Well, yes but not in arcade. People can freely spray their bullets without consequence, as well as many more enemies can be around and behind you at one time compared to RB/SB. This mechanic simply does not make sense to be in this game mode. I would like to hear the support and opinions of players of all different WT religions. Whether it be you go hard for win rates, go for that sky high K/D or if you are simply just an average casual who plays without motive besides to have fun. Any support or opinions on the issue would be greatly appreciated.
  3. 27 points
    We would like to introduce the Type 90 Q&A made in cooperation with DMM, our Japanese distribution partners. Many thanks DMM for their assistance and co-ordination with this article as well as members of the Japanese community for their input. Q. For the JM12A1 shell, shouldn't it be HEAT-MP instead of HEATFS? DMM Comment: The exhibited photo on the JGSDF Public Information Center 「りっくんランド」: 120㎜TKG対戦車りゅう弾 120mm TKG high-explosive anti-tank In game, the type of projectile designates its naming convention. The acronym HEAT-MP simply means the multipurpose designation of the projectile (since initially 120mm guns did not have high-explosive ammunition and had to utilise HEAT ammunition as their replacement). Structurally HEAT-MP and HEATFS designate the same type of ammunition - HEAT stabilized fins. Therefore, everything is correct in the game. Q. Thank you for implementing the Type 90 to the game. For the engine sound, the current Type 90 engine sound is a lot more realistic to the general engine sounds used by other vehicles, however it still sounds different compared to the real Type 90. I know it could be difficult to improve this but if possible, I would like you to further improve the engine sound. (If possible, it would be great if you could improve the engine sounds for not just Type 90, but STB, Type 74 and Type 87 as well.) DMM Comment: We will be recording the actual engine sound from Hokkaido SDF's base between July 17th and 18th. When we are able to obtain high quality audio recordings of this vehicle, we will of course work on implementing this into the game. Q. The in-game hydraulic suspension inclination angle for Type 90 is very different compared to the real vehicle, why? DMM Comment: As described in attached document [Type 90 formula outline D9003B] No.4 main specification ‘(4) the lowest ground height (standard attitude ± variable degrees) ’ the vehicle can only control the hull within ±5degrees attitude control of +170mm~ -255mm to the front and back. ▼Video reference:「JGSDF Type 90 attitude control drill」 This will be corrected. Q. Shouldn't Type 90 have 4 forward gears and 2 reverse gears? DMM Comment: MT1500 is a gear steering system developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Group, where 3 functions gearing, steering and brake are merge into 1 device. The dimension of MT 1500, length 1094mm, width 1460, height 1065mm and a dry weight of 1,940kg. MT1500 gear formula is build with torque converter and planetary gear mechanism, an auto-control electro-hydraulic system with 4 gears forward and 2 gears backward. Magazine “SAT magazine”_「Post-war Japanese tank 」_2009 September vol. P.123 Chapter 7 type 90’s mechanism The currently increased number of gears at the moment simulates the operation of the torque converter and is a game convention. Until a more detailed emulation of such transmissions is created, this is working as intended. Q.Why is it that in X-ray mode, machinery related items are not displayed inside the vehicle's layout? (I believe all the machinery parts have some kind of defense power as well.) Equipment currently provides protection only against small fragments that impact them in the damage model. Q.The driver of the Type 90 is lying down rather than sitting up straight. As we can seen from Youtube, the driver for Type 90 is different to the driver in an M1, he is sitting in a upright position. Do you have any plan to change this? (This mean the composite armour position might be different as well. The ammunition located at the front section of the vehicle might not be protected by the composite armour.) DMM Comment: Japanese Type 90 tank (03:56~/09:33~) The position of the crew shows the approximate placement. In addition, in the game, the crew members do not change their body position, so their appearance in x-ray form cannot be shown in all possible variables. Q.Thank you so much for implementing the Type 90 in this update, I want to show my appreciation to both Gaijin Entertainment and DMM. Regards to the Type 90 in this update, by referring to the documentation related to the type 90 Development ballistic test experiment (provided by DMM as well), the turret and frontal armour is very different to the actual tank. I believe Gaijin Entertainment is aware of this from the forum as well, what kind of standards do you base on when configuring the armour settings? DMM Comment: Within『世界のハイパワー戦車&新技術』(Japan Military Review『軍事研究』2007/December Issue separate volume, it is stated that Ballistic tests conducted on a Type 90 frontal armour by using the main gun from another Type 90, (distance approximately around 250m), after which, the Type 90 being hit could stil function and move normally. There were 4 shell impacts on the frontal composite armour (judging by the traces, there were 3 HEAT-MP and 1 APFSDS shots), it could be confirmed that there was at least 1 shell impact on the turret front right section (according to the impact, the shell is assumed to be APFSDS), basing on the results, it is believed that the turret holds the same defense ability as the hull. '(The same information was provided by DMM as well) The penetration power of JM 33 is more than 500mm, for JM12A1 is more than 600mm. Which means the composite armour value of the Type 90 composite armour should have 500mm or above for KE (kinetic energy) shell, 600mm or above armour value for CE (chemical energy) shell. Firstly, much of the test information given is from a secondary, scientifically popular, source and can contain many inaccuracies and errors. Secondly, indicating the distance the shell travels is meaningless without specifying the impact speed. Most ballistic tests of tanks are conducted at a relatively short distance from the armour under test. The required penetration of the projectile is achieved by the selection of type of charge in the powder, which makes it possible to model any desired firing distance. Therefore, the assertion that the tank sustained a impact from 250m without an accurate indication of the impact speed could mean any equivalent durability. For example, in a game, the tank can withstand the impact of its own armour-piercing projectile, JM-33, from a distance of about 3000m. That does not contradict these statements. For the HEAT projectile, the range and impact speed do not matter, but in the game, the durability of the frontal turret armour is about 600 mm. It is also necessary to understand that during real impacts, armoured resistance is never limited to one shot, as this can not be a representative sample. For comparison - the turret of the T-90, as we see only in the right turret cheek, 3 shots were produced by subcalibre projectiles. A simulated M1A2 turret during the tests of the Swedish tender, 2 hits by sub-calibre and 2 HEAT munitions. Tests of the T-72M1 turret in the Federal Republic of Germany. Q.I have a question on why the MOD would adopt a tank which the [mantlet] can be penetrated by vehicles from WWII. Any tank is a set of compromises for which designers and customers are limited to based on existing restrictions - mass, dimensional limitations, financial, production, etc. In the design of the armour protection of all modern tanks, there are "ballistic windows" that can not be eliminated by using the classic layout of tanks. For all modern tanks, the gun mask or mantlet zone is a vulnerable area. And yes, on many of them it could be pierced by powerful ammunition from the Second World War period. Therefore, the size of the embrasure and accordingly, the mantlets, try to reduce or completely abandon it and make the turret difficult to penetrate (Chieftain, Challenger). However the area around the gun is not resistant to the equivalent resistance of the maximum protection zones. In the case of gun masks of a large area, such as the Leopard 2 and Type-90, it is impossible to have a large amount of armour on it because of the difficulties encountered with the stabilization of the gun if an armour element of large thickness and density is mounted on it. An example of assessing the durability of the Soviet tank turret (Soviet analysts) is that only unshaded zones provide maximum protection and do not penetrate with their own 125mm shells, all other zones have a reduced resistance. For example, on the right is an example of a baseless configuration of a prospective tank, in which the number of vulnerable areas is much smaller. Q.For composite armour, normally it could be observed and estimated according to the welding traces on top of the turret, but it is totally different right now. Do you have plan in fixing this in future updates? It is widely known that the composite armour is located on the sides of the turret frontal section, and at the bottom part of the vehicle. DMM Comment: ▼F-Ryo @Fryo19991218 ▼General AFV Thread http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/652-general-afv-thread/?page=104 We consider this scheme to be incorrect based on an analysis of available tank photos from inside and outside. The following images agree with the scheme and location of the combined armour shown here. One of the photos confirming our point of view. As can be seen on the left turret cheek, the placement of the combined armor as noted on the diagram from the magazine is impossible as there is no place for it. Additionally, we do not exclude the possibility of changes in the tank initial model in situations where new documents or measurements from real vehicles are presented. Q. What materials do you base on when configuring the Type 90s armour? Please reveal the reference sources. Materials in the armour protection of modern tanks, especially Japanese ones, are one of the most classified topics of modern weapons and we do not currently have official documents of this kind. The protection of the tank was reconstructed on the basis of photo analysis, secondary (scientific popular magazines and monographs) sources, as well as available documentary assessments of the protection of other similar tanks, such as the recent Swedish presentation Stridsfordon_idag_och_imorgon, which first published estimates of the resistance of the Leopard 2A4 tank during the Swedish tender. The War Thunder Team
  4. 16 points
    Again and again level designers at Gaijin show us how they simply fail at map design. Each time I play this map there is one team spawn camping other. EVERY SINGLE TIME. You made it so easy to do it. There are spawn points on open field and around them there is like 20 different rocks overwatching the spawn. How many time do you guys fail to make map where spawn camping isn't the case? How about you put the rock or something that will protect people spawning? So i don't get shot from 1km away by some guy abusing 3p view?
  5. 16 points
  6. 15 points
    Hello Everyone Please use this topic to put forward ideas and suggestions you would like to see for the Air Realistic Battles mode. Be sure to go into as much detail as possible, detailing rank, meta and even minor tweaks and changes. Lets also aim to keep as on topic as possible. All off topic/spam will be removed. Thank you as always for your feedback!
  7. 15 points
    In War Thunder, an explosive shell's fuse is only checked against the thickness of the armor plate it hits, instead of how much armor the shell actually goes through. This means that if an extremely angled frontal plate of an M18 is hit by a Dicker Max, the shell fuse will not trigger because the damage model only checks for the thickness of what it hits, irregardless of what the fuse actually hits. There's no explanation of this I could find for this online. Can't seem to find any reason why this works other than to make Object 906 and RU nigh-invincible against a first shot at range. If fuses were made to check against effective angled thickness rather than just the stock "thickness" of the plate, it would prevent a lot of thinly armored vehicles from "eating" loads of shells they normally shouldn't, notably RUs and Object 906s. The hullbreak system probably would not be needed and would be based on the actual performance of APHE, rather than shooting a designated module. TL;DR: Fuses are not affected by angled armor, and it severely disrupts the balance between armor and survivability.
  8. 14 points
    I don't know what else to say at this point, but there is no reason for the Rise P to not have the M833 at this point. There is absolutely no argument against it. It should have had it back in 1.77, especially with the 1A1A1 getting DM23 and the T64A getting 3BM15. The fact that it was moved to 9.0 without getting the ammo it used in combat is beyond absurd. What reason was there to move it to 9.0 when no one played it at 8.7? I want to know the justification for that move. It's nowhere near as good as any of the other 9.0s. I feel like at this point, just trying to get things fixed is more about convincing Gaijin to change their mind then actually proving things are historically correct. Gaijin has tossed anything remotely resembling the historical performance of tanks out the window, especially when it comes to tier VI. Instead, they choose to nerf and buff tanks to fit the BR, instead of changing BR to fit the tank. This stuff needs to stop.
  9. 14 points
    Gaijin really needs to actually balance the game instead of resorting to repair costs to balance vehicles. I played a game in my lorraine 40t got 2 kills didn't die and we won would've gone negative if I had died. Just because a tank is good doesn't mean it should cost 10k+ to repair. The same thing happens in my leopard 1 get some kills and caps but die and boom in the negative. I know it's just a ploy to get people to spend money on GE to turn into SL but really shouldn't the longevity of your game be what matters and not just making money from some people who just keep putting money in the game. My lorraine and leo 1 are just two examples of the horrible repair costs and I know some vehicles have it way worse when they aren't as good as others. If we all speak up about it and get enough people to agree I hope gaijin will actually do something about it and we can actually play vehicles without having to worry about losing SL. Suggestions: I saw a comment on a video the person said that a new way to balance the vehicles is: A: Make the modifiers on how much SL and RP a vehicle gets less if the vehicle is doing very good or increase it if a vehicle is doing bad. B: Keep the repair costs as is and make the amount of SL you get the same or close to the same as the repair cost of the vehicle that you killed. C: Change the repair costs to a reasonable amount and make it to where you cannot go negative only get 0 that way you're not worrying about running out of SL. D: Make the repair costs the same for all vehicles of a certain type example being all light tanks have a set repair cost for every tank of that class same with Heavies TDs etc. E: Change the BRs of the vehicles slightly (my least favorite idea but still is a way to do it I guess) and when you change the BRs put the repair costs down vehicles that were doing very well had repair costs go up then they got put into a higher BR and now they are doing very poorly but still have the repair costs of when they actually did good. I would also like to hear what you guys have to say if you have any ideas on how to fix this problem or why you agree or don’t agree.
  10. 14 points
    the current format of operation summer 2018 seems to again disadvantage those that can not make us of the marketplace such as PS4 players like myself. this format is just blatantly unfair since in the past i would use GE to get the event vehicles since they are worth it to me but as of now i can not do that anymore. i am highly disapointed with this choice and i am sure many other players will agree with me. the fact that there are no aircraft and that the rewards aside from the IS-7 are very very mediocre is just sad. this feels like a blatant way to say "well guys we still have a market place" like the previous event for the tiger and the king cobra. i am disapointed that i will not be getting an IS-7 even though i had saved up to buy 20K GE to get this years summer vehicles. please humor us Gaijin and let me pay 20K GE for the IS-7 and a coupon for atleast on of the reward tanks. EDIT: another question that came to my mind only recently. since i posses the T-34E the M8 the AEC MK2 and the pakwagen what am i supposed to do with my coupons? since as a console player i cant sell them. will i be able to trade them for something else like a TB-3 or an MBR-2 or something or will they just sit there for all eternity gathering dust?
  11. 14 points
  12. 13 points
  13. 13 points
    Repair costs are fine where they are right now. The only one I have an issue with is the t95 has a huge one that needs to go down cause it isn't efficient enough and also the ostwind doesn't need a 20k repair. If you're having trouble making lions then maybe repair costs aren't your only issue...
  14. 12 points
    Tomorrow begins.. THE HUNT FOR THE RE.. IS-7
  15. 12 points
    It should be pointed out that this image Is from one of the pre-production tanks, (the last version IIRC, but nevertheless different). The other information seems to make sense, but this picture doesn't prove anything. The rougher welds and the bars on the matlet show this. Another shot of the same prototype, notice the lack of blowout panels, the different smoke launchers compared to the one in game, the different sights, ect.
  16. 11 points
    No i po tym poście nie mam nawet po co z Tobą rozmawiać.
  17. 11 points
    After fighting a while against leopard 1 tanks and having them absorb apds shots like it was nothing when I was firing at their gun shield, i decided to investigate what was going on. I decided to see if it was a server issue so I decided to do some tests against the leopard 1a1a1 that is in the default test range for Soviet tanks to see what would happen when i fired at the gun shield with the T-55A's 3BM8 round which just happens to be apds. The result of this test was quite interesting to say the least and is shown in the following video: As you the viewer can tell, the apds just outright fails to get through the gun shield after it goes through the additional armor of the leopard 1a1a1, which is quite interesting. What else is interesting is that the last two shots I fired which where aphe just went right through like normal and damaged the tank, I thought this to be quite strange, why on earth is this happening to the apds and not the aphe. After the test with the apds and aphe i just fired the apfds that the T-55A has and it went right through like normal, so this has to be something to do with apds then. I also tested to see if I could get this to go away if I got closer which just happened to work, however I had to close in to 110 meters away from the leopard 1a1a1 which is practically point blank which left me more confused. After getting some help from other players @arczer25 managed to find this. breakingArmorThicknessEffective:b=yes breakingArmorThickness:p2=30.0, 150.0 breakingCriticalSpeed:r=1370.0 breakingDistance:r=0.1 The above code seems to state that if the round is at or under 1370 m/s in velocity then it will begin to shatter if the armor is within 30-150mm of thickness. This can be an explanation on why leopards seem to eat so many apds shots along with sometimes the apds appearing to go into the void and never come back. Lastly after checking with the person who dug this up it would appear that apds is the only round type that is effected by this code making apds even worse in comparison to other rounds in game. I do not know for sure if apds did this in real life or if this performance was meant to make apds so bad against spaced armor, but the performance of said rounds due to this really makes them quite poor against certain tanks like leopard 1a1a1 or thin layered armor. (lastly this is not intended to be a bug report as I do not know if it was intentional, nor do I know if apds does this in real life. This post is just to show people why apds just does no damage at all sometimes even though the protection analysis feature does not show it doing this in game.)
  18. 10 points
    The full name of the vehicle affected. If the problem is isolated to one difficulty setting (e.g. Simulator), specify which. This affects the Type 95 Ro-Go in all game modes.  A detailed description of the issue you have or what you see as being erroneous regarding its representation in-game. The Type 95 Ro-Go is missing its Type 3 70mm HEAT shell. Unless the data is taken from an official Gaijin statement, please provide a documented test and provide the Client Log from that session. As you can see, only APHE and HE are available for the Ro-Go's 70mm gun. 2018_07_30_13_04_43__8328.clog  A detailed description of the fix you suggest. Provide sources including reference that underline your position. This is up to the discretion of the Technical Moderator handling the report, however the number of sources required depends on the type of source presented: Add the Type 3 HEAT shell as an already unlocked ammunition type (similarly to how other premium tanks come with all of their shell types unlocked). This HEAT shell has the following specifications: According to the document "Japanese Tank and Antitank Warfare" According to the document "Handbook of Japanese explosive ordnance: According to the document "Japanese ammunition data, 25 MM-70 MM": According to the document "Japanese Explosive Ordnance (Army Ammunition, Navy Ammunition)": According to file A03032122200 page 144 of the Japanese National Archives: From the book Rikugun. Volume 2: Weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces: Sources: Documents: Handbook of Japanese explosive ordnance, published August 15, 1945 Japanese Tank and Antitank Warfare, published August 1, 1945 Japanese ammunition data, 25 MM-70 MM, published July 20, 1945 Japanese Explosive Ordnance (Army Ammunition, Navy Ammunition), published March 16, 1953 "File of research (研究事項ニ関スル綴). by 1st Army Technology Laboratory (第一陸軍技術研究所)", reference number A03032122200, published August 1, 1944 Books: Rikugun. Volume 2: Weapons of the Imperial Japanese Army & Navy Ground Forces by Leland Ness, published December 19, 2014
  19. 10 points
    The British Rank VI Challenger has been the topic of hot discussion since its introduction with update 1.77 Advancing Storm. The Challenger is one of the iconic tanks Britain has produced and quite rightfully too. Featuring a 120mm main armament, improved mobility and agility over its predecessors and sturdy defensive capabilities, it can best be described as a mixture of all the core MBT characteristics that are shown throughout the various top rank machines we have in game. We would like to discuss and break down some of the concerns raised by players through bug reports as well as give an insight into the Tanks creation in game. Armour protection The introduction of main battle tanks with more complex armour, brought on a significant set of unique challenges for the development team. Accurately modelling tanks with very sophisticated and in some cases classified armour profiles is not an easy feat, never mind considering how to go about relaying that information to players in a clear and comprehensive way. The previous system for displaying the equivalent protection of more advanced armour in the hangar gave only the general protection ratings; usually at the maximum value. However, the real tanks and their game embodiments have a more complex armour design and may have certain zones with more or less protection. Previously, it was difficult to reflect this, but with the introduction of the new "Protection Analysis" feature it became possible. In the specific case of the Challenger, we constructed the tank based on British archive primary sources which were shared with us for our use only. As such, we have the closest and most accurate sources available on the tank. Sources/Documents used on Challenger Armour / Construction: The Challenger's turret armour should be considered taking into account the used ammunition and the point of the hit. With regards to the turret, the Armour protection falls the lower down the turret the shell hits due to the decrease in the angle of inclination. As you can see from the image above, the slope of the turret face changes towards the lower section. Since the main contribution to resistance of armour against kinetic shells is made by the steel component of composite armour, the armour is much weaker at this location. The Challengers full protection can be fully deconstructed in the hangar using the “Protection Analysis” feature and X-ray functions. But as with all composite armour protection, this must be evaluated shell by shell, case by case, as that is how the armour is defined. At the moment we have archive sources in which the armour protection of the Challengers hull is estimated at 275mm RHA equivalent of protection. 1.Future tank policy (pre and post 1995) 2.Analysis in support of future tank policy study Protection against HEAT ammunition was determined on the basis of British assessments of the defensive capabilities of the "Challenger" tank. In the case of the turret, British estimates indicate that the"Challenger" tank could be destroyed by the AT-5 "Spandrel" (“Конкурс”) and the AT-6 “Spiral"(“Штурм”) with penetration ratings in the range of 600 -700mm. Based on this data, the cumulative protection value of the turret in the game will be 600-650mm. ATGM and armor penetrator assessment. 26 June 1981 Ammunition Sources used for the 120mm ammunition: 120mm Report for Preliminary Acceptance Annex J Tank APFSDS BD26 Unsolicited Proposal GSR 3758 Acceptance Part 9 RARDE Supplement GSR OE 3758 Acceptance With regards to the Challengers ammunition, when constructing shells of similar types to the L23, great importance was given to the penetration of obstacles at large angles, since it was believed that such an obstacle well imitated the armor of Soviet MBTs, to which angle was known from intelligence data. However, because of the effect of the back layer (when the penetrator approaches the rear wall of the plate, the resistance of the material in the lower part of the plate decreases, because behind it is less metal, as a result, the channel of penetration is bent downwards), the penetration of the plate at a large angle can not be calculated with the penetration of the projectile on a normal plate. Knowing the dimensions of the core and assuming that it is made of high-quality tungsten nickel iron alloy and its entire length is a core, and not based on a real design, ie used the most favourable indicators for the projectile (using a temperature of 21°C ), one can obtain the following figures when using the calculator here: 71 degrees we receive 490mm 60 degrees we get 448mm 0 degrees = 385-390mm All of the above values are indicative of the length of the penetration channel and result in the ability to penetrate a 159mm plate at an inclination of 71 degrees - With a penetration channel of 490mm. A plate thickness of 224 mm at a slope of 60 degrees creates a penetration channel of 448 mm and for 0 degrees 390mm thickness of plate. It should be taken into account that the real L23A1 projectile is made of a tungsten nickel copper alloy, which has somewhat worse indicators, so the figures are likely to be somewhat lower. Taking into account all this information, we plan to change the penetration of projectiles in the future, both L23 and L23A1, as well as the L15. Fire control One point often raised is that the tank sighting has the wrong magnification and should be factor 11.5, quoting “ British Army 120mm gun tank Challenger Part 2 Fighting Systems” as the source. This exact source is referencing the Thermal Imaging system and not the primary sight when it refers to a factor 11.5 magnification. The Primary sight is laser rangefinder, periscopic, AV, No.10 Mk.1 which we have correctly modeled with the correct magnification in game. Future plans for the Challenger Q. Do you plan to introduce any new shells for the Challenger? A. We don't have any plans for new shell types at the moment. We discussed the changes to the L23 and L15 ammunition, for now, we think that ammunition is entirely suitable for the Challenger. Q. Are its current armour values final? A. Values of armour protection will be final only if we receive comprehensive information based on primary sources about the detailed structure of armour and the results of testing it with all types of ammunition. At the moment, we don't have what we consider to be “conclusive” evidence and we dont believe we will be able to receive any such data soon, if at all. So, as new sources of information are discovered, the armour protection of both Challenger and other vehicles can change. Q. When you exceed 25 mph, the gun stabilizer stops working, is this correct? A. Yes this is indeed correct, as it is for many tanks in the game. Higher speed equates to degraded stabilizer performance. Q. Do you plan on correcting the Challengers name to “Challenger Mk 2”? Do you also have plans to add the Mk 1 and Mk 3 variants? A. Yes, we do plan to adjust the name. Currently we have no plans for the Mk 1 or Mk 3 variants as separate variants. Q. Do you have any plans for upgrades (like the T-64BV) that can maybe increase protection or defensive capabilities? A. It is possible that the current tank will be upgraded to a Mk.3 standard. First of all this version is distinguished by the additional protection of its ammunition, wet stowage was eliminated and armoured boxes for the storage of charges and shells were introduced instead. We may also look at a defensive upgrade with an ERA kit and additional side skirt armour. We would like to say a special thanks to Fu_Manchu for providing the material and documents to make this blog possible.
  20. 10 points
    I think there are two likely reasons Gaijin won't fix the over-performance of wartime Russian vehicles: A: Gaijin is incapable of accepting that Russian vehicles weren't all that great, it literally just "does not compute" with them. B: They are afraid of backlash from the Russian playerbase, which is ultra-sensitive about the subject (and the "Great Patriotic War" in general).
  21. 10 points
    "Our goal is to provide you with information as soon as we can, we have no reason to not inform you as quickly as possible . Once again, we are very sorry for any inconvenience." So where is the information about the event?
  22. 10 points
    I know I am not good nor am I that bad but that doesn't change the fact that no matter what you do some vehicles cannot be profitable if you die and you are going to die. Example being m1 Abrams, B-29, TU-4. You might be able to just break even using those vehicles. The fact is repair costs are not fine at all there is an obvious problem with them that gaijin will not fix.
  23. 10 points
    That is because of ricochet chances, another thing that should be deleted from the game completely. This is my main point - lets not cover one bad thing with the other, because the game is going to be "WoT wannabe" soon. If the game is meant to be realistic, arguments like "deserve the kill" should not be here - in AB sure, but not RB. Especially that it is only available if You have APHE, solid shots can pen cupolas all day with no effect. They did not "deserved" the kill? IS-6 also is the wonderkid of ricochet chances, "armorThrough" and bad slope modifiers for every round except Russian ones. Beside, that's premium, it is meant to be OP, that is not a good example. But I wouldn't mind meeting Jagdtiger with late Sherman... well, it is unvincible frontally and that is cool, I need to flank it. If I can't flank it, it means I made a mistake by letting myself into situation without option to retreat.
  24. 10 points
    Source? if you have a valid source, use it. Leopard 2A4 never fired DM13 outside of being used as practice ammunition designed DM38A2. The 2A4 we have is from '91-'92, by which point DM33 was the only APFSDS round it carried, DM23 again being relegated as practice ammunition in the form of DM38A4. The fact both of these tanks use HEATFS as stock is a joke and completely ridiculous, meanwhile all russian top tier tanks with the exception of the T-55A use APFSDS as stock....
  25. 10 points
    This was implemented prior to Gaijin announcing a pay to win component in the form of health packs that I believe were to be available through the market place. Once they walked back on that idea they should have removed the pilot health effect. Or they want to leave it in so that the next time health packs get introduced the players won't complain.