Anonimo_LLopi

Knight of the Sea
  • Content count

    330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

medal

Community Reputation

237 Neutral

About Anonimo_LLopi

  • Rank
    Officer cadet

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

748 profile views
  1. Of course it will, ~40% more armour is not a small change short 75mm and 85mm will struggle instead of going right through short 88mm and long 75mm will struggle when slightly angled And this will stop long 88mm with a good angle
  2. Thanks for that, I will try to bug report it, but I need the references because "Photographs need to be fully referenced." also is there any document saying that it reaches 5.5 inches (140mm)? It would be odd if they indeed increased the thickness to 140mm in that part without actually documenting it, I mean that's the point of the Actual part of the document I was mostly talking about the thickness of that part with less slope on the UFP but whatever Also, was this bug reported before? Not too long ago gaijin updated armour with 45º or less and gave them more effectivity vs ap, apc, apbc, apcbc shells or something like that
  3. How to do good when activating boosters: >Activate boosters >Forget about them once you activate them >Profit
  4. Tier IV and Tier V tanks gets their real life optics zoom levels to fight ATGMs super sights All tier III or less tanks get the same zoom If the tortoise zoom is THAT bad is because it was THAT bad in real life
  5. I found this And it's saying this plate it's in reality 140mm is this true? Because it would make sense irl because this part is less sloped with the same thickness as the more sloped part, basically making a weakspot, exactly what it is right now in War Thunder If this is true can anyone find documents that say how the armour was on M26 & M46?
  6. The Conqueror has better turret cheek armour but worse gun mantlet armour Also the M103 UFP has rounded shape instead of completely flat and because of this there are parts with more than 60º so it can be quite trolly These are the weakspots on the conqueror turret:
  7. Nope that's a normal game mechanic, if you always shot at the same spot with no overlap with long 75mm it will always go through There are some things with RNG like: ricochet chances on sloped plates -+10% penetration that the stat card says or chances of your shot not going where you want it to when you shoot your gun (there's 2 modification to reduce this chance, in arcade not having any of these 2 will make your shots go wherever in Realistic and Simulator these chances are still there but they are MUCH lower) But nothing regarding to overlaps afaik That guy that shoot you simply got lucky enough to hit the really small part without overlap around that area I think the problem with the StuH shell is that it doesn't have a Ballistic Cap (it's only APHE instead of the L-11's APCBC-HE) The cap reduces ricochet chances and it increases penetration at slopes and reduces penetration losses over distances And iirc overmatch mechanics are more strict with AP than with APCBC, APC or APBC (But this doesn't affect in this case because the ap is so thicc diameter wise it already reached full overmatch) When a shell overmatch another it increases the slope penetration by only a little bit The problem here is simply that the StuH APHE is horrible armour penetration wise (Because it's a howitzer) and because it doesn't have a cap for slopes
  8. The problem with that is that all shells in game are modeled with the diameter of 1 pixel The shell simply touched the 80mm part and because it's just 1 pixel diameter it didn't touched all the other plates That guy got really lucky because there's one spot where there's not overlap and he just hit right that In the death cam when a shell hits and penetrates a plate it "glows" in white and as you can see in your video the only plate that glowed was the 80mm confirming my theory that the pixel diameter shell only touched the 80mm part Here is the exact part:
  9. the problem with the conqueror is that freaking MASSIVE LFP, if you are in a map where you can't find any spot to find it you are dead even the soviet 85mm can pen it Also 4 crew only The m103 however gets AP OHK nuke, HEAT-FS, 5 crew, more trolly turret with better gun mantlet (Yesterday I bounced a leo a1a1 and 2 IT-1s atgms point blank) and a much more decent LFP:
  10. Pretty sure it penetrated, the problem with the APCBC-HE of the L-11 is that the Fuse delay is one of the shortest of the game (If not the shortest) It explodes only 0.15 Meters before it penetrates armour, for comparison the upgraded shell of the later T-34s with 76.2mm explode 0.9 Meters before That's why it looks like it exploded outside, it simply exploded really fast
  11. Basically when the shell's caliber is twice or more the penetration on that plate hit increases by quite a lot In this case the plate hit was 30mm by a 76.2mm caliber shell 30 * 2 = 60mm so if you have that caliber or higher the 30mm plate will be penetrated with ease even when it's sloped and with the tank angled Here a another example: 152mm gun vs angled 70mm plate at 60º vertical or 30º Horizontal As you can see the 152mm only penetrates 59mm at 60º vertical or 30º Horizontal (in the stat card it shows the horizontal angle) However because of this "if shell caliber is twice or more than the plate hit" 70 * 2 = 140mm so if you have a 140mm or more caliber cannon the 70mm plate will be penetrated with ease even when it's sloped and with the tank angled: Also yes, effective thickness is only for HEAT, HEAT-FS and ATGMs Shells It only works for these shells because these shells are the only ones that always use the same formula for calculating slope penetration Because other type of shells use more complex formulas and they vary from one shell to another ex. apds slope penetration is worse than the apcbc slope penetration Also heat is the most effective shell at penetrating slopes, that's why you can't really trust effective thickness for other type of shells, because it's normally is more armour This is the simplest formula for all these shells: How to calculate 60º Vertical or 30º Horizontal from HEAT shells : (penetration from 0º Vertical or 90º Horizontal) / 2 ex. 400mm / 2 = 200mm (at 60º Vertical or 30º Horizontal)
  12. Yes, It should be cheaper in all gamemodes because how easy it's to kill and even more now with hullbreak AB 3500sl to 1500sl (Or even less really unless br reduction) RB and SB 5000sl to 2500sl Also realistically this thing was really cheap to produce but in war thunder there are irl expensive heavies that are cheaper to repair than the irl cheap lights tanks ffs this thing is more expensive to repair than the T34
  13. vehicles/tanks

    inb4 but T10m apcbc should be able to pen 84º angles ))))))))))
  14. That weakspot is only for high penetration guns at close ranges but i did got penetrated once from there by a tiger II H at a bit more than 100 meters (BTW the shot trap works even with the American 3 inch gun)
  15. Gaijin is so pigheaded about it being AP they called it "AP" but with APBC properties they gave these 120mm AP shells APBC Ricochets chances and Slope modifiers Before the M103 Ap penetrated at 60º vertical only up to 101mm Now it penetrates up to 116mm at 60º vertical Old New As a extra, damage comparison between old and new:
  16. I was talking about the left cheek Also why would you EVER shoot HEAT at the turret when you can shoot at the hull and make more damage with a higher penetration chance? Before you ask "but what if the IS-3 is hulldown" something with -3º of gun depression simply can't hull down easily, 90% it will have his hull exposed Did I mentioned how this hull can be easily penetrated by Jagdtigers, Cent. mk10s, Conways, Type 61s, Type 60s all researchable 7.0 or less tanks? I don't recommend that spot, it's too trolly, the effective thickens changes A LOT every pixel, it can change from 150mm effective to 235mm effective with just a pixel of difference Here's a overmatched weakspot: if you are on a higher terrain than the IS-3 shot here Replay or it didn't happen. The IS-3 only needs to be slightly angled for that 210mm HEAT shell to penetrate: Well, the old model had MUCH less weakspots (I swear, it was harder to kill a IS-3 with the long 88mm than a IS-4 with the long 88mm) IIRC it didn't even have a 200mm turret ring nor a 100mm gun sight hole Gaijin added A LOT of weakspots with the model update
  17. Just made some tests with the M6A1 and it's APCBC-HE versus the jumbo turret: As you can see the APCBC-HE is exploding outside but the HE fragments are getting into the jumbo because of this missing armour and the arcade marker even marks whenever this fragments can get into the tank or not when it's green Replay is from the usermission where these tests came from #2017.03.20 23.54.53.wrpl 2017_03_20_23_03_19__4112.clog
  18. The jumbo's hull roof have a hole without any armour that anything can get through around the turret ring area To reproduce it simply shoot at any the previously mentioned parts with a machine gun or with a low caliber HE shell to the turret ring and it will go straight through killing the crew inside It should not be like this because IRL and in the 3d model of the game the hull roof is covering these parts so nothing with less than 19.5mm of penetration gets through But in game right now there's a hole without any armour so ANYTHING can get through including a explosion of a APCBC-HE outside of the tank that killed my driver because of this Normally the roof would stop this small exterior explosion from getting inside but there's a hole so there's nothing stopping those fragments from killing my driver I noticed all the jumbos got a more accurate improved design on the damage model but gaijin seem to forgot to completely attach the turret to the roof because the roof hole have more diameter than the turret itself http://warthunder.com/es/tournament/replay/type/168848594769097434/ http://wt-game-replays.warthunder.com/0257dee7000932da/0000.wrpl Last version [1.67.1.19]
  19. Vehicles affected: M4A3E2, M4A3E2 (76), Cobra King The bug is that the M4 Sherman Jumbo Series have a quite big hole without armour around the turret ring, I got already killed because of this bug: on a arcade match a M6A1 fired a APCBC-HE shell with only 127mm of max penetration at the rear of my jumbo's turret which is 152mm CHA so he would normally fail to penetrate the jumbo's turret But because of this bug the APCBC-HE shell exploded outside of the tank (And acted like a HE shell with 63g of TNT) and the explosion got trough this hole and It killed my driver: This hole without armour is quite big and it makes the jumbos very vulnerable to planes and fragments because it doesn't have armour the low penetration guns with high RPM of the planes can go straight through killing your crew really easily Screenshots of the hole in question: As you can see the cursor is touching the lower side plate of the Hull and the Hull floor The replay is where I got killed by that M6A1 through this missing armour 2017_03_19_19_02_51__9716.clog BUG Holes around the jumbo turret ring.wrpl
  20. Bug reported: (You won't be able to see it until it gets accepted)
  21. Vehicles affected: M4 Sherman, Sherman IC 2nd <<Warsaw>> Armored Division (premium Sherman firefly) This 88.9mm Plate is currently underperforming It Should have the a minimum of 95.3mm of armour and up to 120.65mm because in game it's cast and the cast variant of the add on armour was 1 3/4 Inches (44.45mm) thick: This add on plate was added because in this inner part of this plate they were parts that only reached 2 inches (50.8mm) instead of 3 (76.2mm), as you can see here: but there are some places where it's 3 inch (76.2mm) so the add on amour increased it to 120.65mm, 76.2mm + 44.45mm = 120.65mm A portion of the turret wall was very thin, to allow clearance inside the turret for the power traverse. To protect this "thin spot", a patch on the right front of the turret was introduced around Spring 1943, & modification kits were provided for depot & field installation. The photo shows the thin spots on the interior turret wall Basically, with this add on cast armour some parts reached from 95.3mm to 120.65mm, this is a blueprint of were are these thin parts looked from above here's a very rough estimation of how the armour should be in game: Sources: https://es.scribd.com/doc/30827701/Applique-Armor-on-M4-Series-Medium-Tanks (Applique Armor on M4 series Medium Tanks By Kurt Laughlin) http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/turret_types/75mm_turrets.html (At the center of the page this add on armour is mentioned) 2017_03_17_14_45_06__10524.clog
  22. Here, I just made this with my amazing paint skills: Assuming this it's for cast: Green: 95.3mm Red: 120.65mm Technically this is looked above the tank like this right? EDIT: Ok, I have attempted to paint it on top of the the 3d model and this is what it end up on:
  23. Yes I realized it just before you posted I put it on the prior post now edited
  24. ah that makes more sense, but in game it's a cast 88.9mm plate which doesn't make any sense because it's a mix between cast and rolled If they wanna keep it as a 1 part cast it should simply be 95.3mm Also how much armour would the 50.8mm turret sides that got covered by this add on armour would get? because if they remove 2 inches (50.8mm) it would only remain the add on armour, reducing the armour to 44.45 if cast or 38.1 if rolled Or that part didn't get affected? nvm i get it now, some inner parts had only 50.8mm because inside they had to remove armour to make the turret traverse mechanism fit But there are also some parts with 76.2mm
  25. Thanks for that really precised info if I read that correctly these add on plates are not 88.9mm but 44.45mm if cast (In game it's cast so we will go for this one), even though it's half this, it's still underperforming because 76.2mm + 44.45mm= 120.65mm not the 88.9mm that we currently have or 38.1mm if rolled "The plates were 1-1/2 inches thick when made of rolled plate and 1-3/4 inches thick when cast."
  26. I will if I can get any documents saying this plate was added into the older shermans instead of replacing the plates behind the 88.9mm one. Also, the premium Sherman firefly also had this extra plate and like the M4 the overlap was removed, and this tank need all the armour it can have...
  27. You know those 3.5 inch (88.9mm) plates America added to the older Shermans in front of turret to protect the gunner creating a overlap of 88.8mm + 76.2mm (165.1mm) and 88.9mm + 50.8mm (139.7mm)? Real Life photo of a M4 with the same added plates: According to gaijin the armour behind the newly added plate was removed I might do a bug report if I find sources but I doubt gaijin will fix it back, because when gaijin makes purposely unrealistic changes they never come back
  28. Normal AP damage (Pre-1.67) New thicc AP (With Sekrit Ballistic Cap) damage model for the T34 and M103 AP shells:
  29. If you have Knight of the Sea or Way of the Samurai group under avatar it means that you HAVE access to the sections. If you have Member group under avatar please log out and log in, wait few minutes and relog again. If you still see Member group instead of test group, please post in this thread. Stona The page https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/1118-knights-of-the-sea-closed-section-for-beta-testers/ says Sorry, there is a problem We could not locate the item you are trying to view. Error code: 2F176/1 Even though I have access to the beta: I got access by being randomly selected on the raffle (200 participants, 0.5% chance, I got lucky) of the twitch stream from a while ago, maybe it doesn't detect me because i don't have any packs?
  30. Explanation of a gun stabilizer American magazine from 1944 explaining how a Gun Stabilizer works on a Sherman (Page 82) I'm making this post because you can't really know which tanks have a gun stabilizer or not in WT unless you try the tank, it's not listed anywhere. Also with this post we can know which tanks should have one (But they don't right now) Real life example: here is the first automatic gun stabilizer on the centurion mk.3 tank How the old stabilization system worked (Comparison between a stabilized gun and a non stabilized one, M4A1 vs T-34 1942) Tanks that we have in game that had stabilizers IRL: (It will be specified if the stabilizer it's not implemented in the game) America: M3A1 & M5A1 Stuart (Not implemented currently, bug report was accepted: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/347920-id0053518id0053520-28jan17-m3a1-m5a1-missing-gyro-stabilizers/) All of the M4 series (Except for the 105mm howitzer version) M551 Sheridan M60A1 (Not implemented currently, probably because it was a later modification that added the gun stabilizer) Germany: Leopard A1A1 USSR: PT-76 Object 906 T-62 T-10M IT-1 Britain: Sherman II FV4202 Centurion mk.3 Strv 81 Centurion mk.10 Chieftain mk.3 Caernarvon Conqueror mk.2 Conway Japan: M4A3 (76) W STB (Not implemented currently) Type 74 (Not implemented currently) If you see anything wrong or missing post it (This is WIP and I didn't tried with all tanks) edit: PROPER GUN STABILIZATION CONFIRMED: https://warthunder.com/en/news/4556-development-gun-stabilizer-en/ I updated this post because of this