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.
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?
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.
I’ll admit, I never knew that. I stand corrected on T50. I do still distinctly remember T50E1 being also impossible to model for the reasons I outlined above. I’m linking the old forum post where I got my info.
I made those bug reports years ago, well before the calculator was created. I initially thought the T50 was just a modified M82, but I found a document comparing the T50 and T33, which I used to create the models Flip posted above.
The system used by Gaijin uses the shell weight, diameter, filler and velocity to calculate penetration. Rounds without AP caps are given a .9x penalty. It’s extremely simplistic. I get why they use it but they should be open to input from players to add rounds like the T50.
As far as I know, only APFSDS rounds that have primarily one core material use a formula for penetration (so basically APFSDS that is either made of just one material, or stuff like M735 which has a steel jacket around a marge tungsten carbide core). Namely it’s the Lanz-Oddermatt formula which you can find here.
Stuff like 3BM25 (russian 100 mm APFSDS) has a steel jacket and a tiny tungsten carbide slug at the tip. There isn’t really a formula for it, so it doesn’t use a formula and relies entirely on documented penetration values as far as I know.
One thing I’ll point out is that unlike AP, APCR and APDS rounds, APFSDS does not have a formula in the game itself. What Gaijin does is plug the values in a formula outside the game (likely the one I linked) and simply hard code the resulting penetration values into a look up table for that specific APFSDS round.
I mean i think the use of formulas is better most of the time. Yeah it is not that accurate (IIRC IRL the US 75mm had higher pen with M72 tha M61, but correct me if i am wrong), but at least it is a standardised thing.
i think this also helps to elliminate some potential classified document leaks too, but i can be wrong on that.
The main point from what I remember was that different countries have different testing criterion, therefore the penetration value stated by one country won’t match the one from another country. By using a formula to calculate penetration, you stop relying on documentation.
The US alone had 3 entirely separate penetration criterion: army, protection and navy. It’s complicated.
That was the argument. By using the formula, they can ignore different standards and issues with specific rounds. That doesn’t mean they can’t try to make the formula reasonable or flexible.
A moot argument when practically every AP round oveperforms due to not shattering on impact, allowing them to penetrate much thicker armor that they could in RL.
Not to mention that German penetration criteria required APHE rounds to penetrate intact.
Just because the round disintegrates itself on impact doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be able to perforate 230mm at 30°.
Just because the 0-45° would suffer at higher veloity, doesn’t mean that the performance at greater angles would suffer the same amount.
Anyone who knows about that spot can aim for it. It is not a pixel shot.
People don’T usually shoot there for the simple fact that they don’t know it exists. There are a lot of weak spots that people don’t know about, yet those few that does know about it will be able to exploit said weak spots.
This whole thing that the guy said is nonsense.
Like half the pen of the in game value? So an 88mm round at 1200m/s should only pen ~160mm?! Nice.
AP shattering should not be a thing in this game. The mechanic itself can be good, but if Gaijin with their utter incompetence implements it, then nothing good will come from that. See APDS and APCR right now.
This too much realism is also bad. From that point on, things like random engin fire, or ammo rack randomly exploding (khm Sheridan) are not far.
