And you are saying they don’t shatter without any proof.
Please upload all of your replays in which you shot APDS or APCR!
At that time i was nearly finished with the 17 pdr cruisers (Avenger, Challenger, Comet), and then the update came, and made those already bad tanks even worse.
I know this, because the previous day i was slaying Jumbos in tank assault with APDS, and the other day i could not penetrate them.
I looked at the example with the T-54, and it falls into what I mention. You didn’t hit the turret, you hit the side armor, on top of three additional small bits of armor. With the current mechanic, APDS loses additional left-over penetration after going through a plate of armor, as stated on the changelog I provided. Hitting those two small steel plates on top of having air between them lead to the APDS losing too much penetration to go through the side armor at such a high angle, and made it shatter due to hitting multiple layers of armor, as I have stated is a condition for APDS to shatter.
But really the final takeaway is that this doesn’t show APDS shattering on a singular plate of armor.
The Jumbo upper plate is composed of multiple layers of armor which, again, makes APDS lose more penetration and leads them to shatter if they fail to penetrate.
BRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH.
Dude, did you actually read what i wrote?
So according to your logic, in this picture, the APDS went right through the MG operator, and did no damage to him, nor did it damage the loader, and just knocked out the engine.
Pic:
Can you understand, that the hit cam is sometimes showing different angles, compared to where you hit the enemy?
Can you understand this?
Excuse me? Did you read what I wrote? I mentioned the T-54, not the Tiger II.
I watched the replay to reach my conclusion, I didn’t look at the screenshots alone.
You 2 are quite off topic, could you please stop with the APDS APCR rant? This is about the Pak 41 and co.
This is what supposed to illustrate how inconsistent it is.
The 17 pdr does not shatter on the Jumo upper plate, it just does not pen. Maybe 1-2 shot in a 100 shatters. Same with the 83mm. But on the other hand, it shatters on a structural steel box on the side of a ZSU-57-2.
You know why i posted that pic?
TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE HIT CAM IS SOMETIMES BUGGY, AND SHOWS DIFFERENT ANGLES COMPARED TO WHAT YOU SHOT!
Do you have the ability to understand that?
I would, but this guy just keeps on coughing up BS.
Then go to DMs
1 Like
Not gonna lie and tank which shoots not APHE and APCBC would be cool for Germany. Bad post pen and angle pen is not a problem if the br is right
And a fun High Velocity at that, my suggestion for the Pz III Ausf. L mit Waffe 0725 is currently pending.
And what BR do you suggest?
I can’t really put it in any BR.
If you put it too low (3.3-3.7) people will complain about it having ~200mm pen, despite doing no damage and randomly bouncing/not pennin/shattering.
You put it too high (post 4.7), and it will be useless.
At 3.7 and above the armor on a Panzer III L is basically 0, and the gun is just meh at best. It really depends on how Gaijin models it.
If Gaijin adds a resonable solidshot to it, then maybe 4.0 or 4.3.
Ill rather let gaijin decide and then the Br changes every 3 month.
1 Like
and this tank. Both would be great to fill the heavy tank line. Only a rank 3 light tank is missing then
1 Like
Sure, why not? It’s not like this game has any semblance of realism left, might as well add paper tank with paper guns.
Oh, mb, “totally real” vehicles that existed as a single experimental testbed, lol.
Wdym? There is documentation and even a picture of the Pz III Ausf. L mit Waffe 0725.
No offense, but imho vehicles that didn’t have at least a “Major Prototype Run” do not belong in this game.
Spoiler
But, as I said, I dont care much either way.
There is a literal full prototype. And more guns were build.