In all of my almost 200 deaths in the T32E1 I never died to a roof shot to the right side. It does not happen in a live game. Also a true cupola shot on the T32 isn’t possible. The right side can only be penned thanks to the cupola catching the round and detonating it.
I get that you’re an arcade player and pixel hunting is normal for you however this thread is mainly based on RB and why these reload buffs are needed within realistic battles.
It’s a 2 pixel weakspot.
I am happy that you was never killed by that roof shot.
It does not changes the fact, that your statement was incorrect.
it also does not change the fact that you was dishonest. I just don’t understand what was you thinking with that, when it all was visible. Like dude, at least misrepresent something that other people can’t see…
Irrelevant. It is a valid weak spot.
The fact that you have to go with this “you are an arcade player” shows your utter defeat here.
Admit that you was wrong and move on. it isn’t that hard to do.
It is not. Even if it was, it is still a valid weak spot.
It does not changes the fact, that your statement was incorrect.
it also does not change the fact that you was dishonest. I just don’t understand what was you thinking with that, when it all was visible. Like dude, at least misrepresent something that other people can’t see…
I included all relevant information I don’t need to include your whole reply. I’m not hiding info everyone can go check the post I replied and look at the other stuff too.
Irrelevant. It is a valid weak spot.
Only in arcade. If you actually played realistic you would know it’s impossible to hit reliably.
It is not. Even if it was, it is still a valid weak spot.
Look at the video provided. A 2 pixel weakspot is not reliable.
The IS-4M can be front penned by a Panzer 4 too. That means the armor is bad too right?
Can this thread please die so the updated one that hopefully stays on topic gets somewhere?
→ Updated List Of Tanks Around 7.7 BR That Need A Reload Buff To Become Competitive again
Except, you only included the screenshot that showed the weak spot under the cupola, and you wanted to make it seem like it hit the cupola. You even did this:
Weak spots are still weak spots even if they are rare to hit. I mean why did the germans change the Panther’s mantlet?
It happened in real life, and in game too. It is a valid weak spot.
Still not 2 pixels. Pixel size does not mean anything in terms of describing a size of something without additional information.
)If in a real match it can be penned, then it is a weak spot.
No. And please quote the exact line where i said the T32/E1 has bad armor because of that.
Except, you only included the screenshot that showed the weak spot under the cupola, and you wanted to make it seem like it hit the cupola. You even did this:
Yes because the shot to the left of the turret is impossible to hit without a huge amount of luck and can therefor be ignored. The cupola is the only reason a shot the right is doable in a live game.
Weak spots are still weak spots even if they are rare to hit. I mean why did the germans change the Panther’s mantlet?
It happened in real life, and in game too. It is a valid weak spot.
Bad comparisson. A trapshot is not a reliable weakspot of the Panther.
Still not 2 pixels. Pixel size does not mean anything in terms of describing a size of something without additional information.
2 pixels on a 1920x1080 screen. That’s the margin of error you’re allowed to have when aiming for this weakspot.
If in a real match it can be penned, then it is a weak spot.
If in a real match it can be penned reliably, then it is a weak spot.*
No. And please quote the exact line where i said the T32/E1 has bad armor because of that.
Do you not know what an exaggeration is? Do I have to spoonfeed everything to you?
I’d be thankful if you could post any following answers about reload time in the new one as I will stop responding in this thread.
Soft admittion of defeat.
Nice saving!
It’s getting annoying. You don’t want to understand anything. Just go play arcade and leave RB players alone. These gamemodes play completely different and you can’t apply Arcade weakspots to RB.
You have no idea about how these heavies play in RB. The only 7.7 heavy you played that I mentioned is the Conqueror and only in Arcade.
They are the same size. The cupola has nothing to do with it.
You have no idea what you’re talking about if you think that.
So you can reliably hit it, but not this one? Seems legit.
Look which one is the 2 pixels!
Go ahead and hit a 5x smaller weak spot reliably.
I said the Panther trapshot is not reliable either.
So a 5x smaller weak spot if perfectly hitable, but a 5x bigger isn’t. I am not sure how it goes.
More like you, but okay.
Okay, i misread it. Sorry.
So a 5x smaller weak spot if perfectly hitable, but a 5x bigger isn’t. I am not sure how it goes.
Where did I say that?
More like you, but okay.
Play 100 matches with these 7.7 heavies in RB before saying something like that.
I measured it.
You know, 10/2=5.
LOL.
I measured it.
You know, 10/2=5.
Bruh. How do you fail to understand that.
So a 5x smaller weak spot if perfectly hitable, but a 5x bigger isn’t. I am not sure how it goes.
Where did I say one is hitable and the other one isn’t.
Yeah i had a brainfart there. Sorry for that.
Going back to the topic, both the Panther shot trap, and the T32 turret weak spot are exactly that. Weak spots.
Just like the rangefinder on many tanks, like Panther F/II, Fake Tiger II, M103, etc.
:P just regurgitating the stupid shit people say for perspective :)
That argument might hold weight if the T32E1 got its proper ammunition and proper performance. The IS-4M gets 3 APHE rounds, one of which has massively OP slope modifiers. The Maus gets a prototype round that should have nearly half the performance it does in game, on top of two APHE full caliber rounds. The M103 gets HEATFS to at least offset the under performing APBC.
The T50 APCBC was developed specifically for the T32, which is not in game. The T43 APBC is under performing considerably against sloped armor and the T44 is under performing across the board. Gaijin is aware of all these issues and refuses to fix them.
Isnt it T50E1 that improved penetration to the levels of 88mm/71?
Gaijin doesn’t want to add a third or fourth variable to the penetration calculator, which is somewhat understandable. (Much to the chagrin of many others and myself, I want to see 90mm US ammo perform well as much as anyone else does) Especially considering the vagueness of “improved heat treatment” is difficult to quantify into a concrete “ammo quality” value for easy calculations.
They’d also have to re-do calcs for hundreds of rounds if “quality” was implemented. As much as I wish T50E1 and M82/late were a thing, I can see why devs aren’t really looking into it. It’d turn into a colossal pile of work just because one additional variable was added to the penetration calculator.
It has nothing to do with quality. The penetrator of the T50 was increased, while the cap was decreased.
Gaijin can and should adjust rounds, if they have a consistent reference. I used the M82 as a reference because there are documents showing the M82 and T50 defeating the same plate thickness and hardness.
Also, Gaijin fabricated a special set of slope modifiers specifically for Soviet APBC. The ground devs can do a lot of things. They just choose not to.
They didn’t.
All slope modifiers for full bore AP rounds come solely from “WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery”.
The info I was shown stated that the ammo’s geometry and mass were unchanged, but the method of production and heat treatment vastly improved penetration performance (again, on the level of 88mm/71when fired from long 90mm).
Improved heat treatment can be modeled in the penetration calculator under the “krupp/shell quality” variable, it’s just that Gaijin doesnt want to do that.
He was referring to the APHEBC rounds the USSR and China get which have a heavy normalization modifier regarding sloping that isn’t displayed anywhere in the round’s info card. It is a major buff to those rounds relative to their counterparts, and only those two countries get rounds with those slope modifiers. Rounds like the American solid shots that also had extremely capable angled penetration get the shaft.
I can’t be the only one who remembers Gaijin claiming they would remove those special modifiers as part of the DeMarre normalization, can I?
This is the image that was linked on the post, showing cross sections of M82, T50 and T33 respectively.
He very clearly said that Gaijin created those slope modifiers from scratch. Which is not true, as they simply didn’t make them. They took them directly from a book that also has slope effects for uncapped sharp nose AP and capped sharp nose AP.
De Marre is for calculating flat penetration. Slope effects serve to obtain a slope penetration value from that flat penetration. They work with each other, making the implementation of new rounds trivial. Slope effects rely on flat penetration (and potentially round caliber) to calculate slope pen, De Marre relies on the round’s characteristics to provide that flat penetration.
Does it provide the greatest most accurate values? Of course not, I have my fair share of problems with it (like US solid shot). But does it mean they can implement new rounds easily? Yes.
