While obviously not as bad as right after the APDS changes, back then soviet APDS could not pen a Leo 1A1 turret side where it has addon armor, yet not only L7 APDS penned it, even US 90mm APCR did.
As i said now it is much better, but they still underperform.
They might not be coded to do so, but at least it is a universal bug that applies to all rounds with overpressure enabled, so long as enough of them are fired at a tank in close succession.
If that were the case here, the 105 mm APDS would also have poorer performance, but instead you’re saying the 100 mm and 122 mm performs worse does but the 105 mm doesn’t when they share the same code. That is not how it works, either they all underperform and are buggy, or none of them are.
Besides it is very easy to test in protection analysis and see that these rounds do behave the same towards multiple plates of armor.
Using 83.4 mm APDS as control, much higher slope modifier (therefore higher armor effectiveness), and does not pen due to penetration loss.
100, early 105 and 122 mm all show the exact same slope modifier, and all 3 have a “low” chance for penetration with 330 mm pen selected.
For the sake of it, late 105 mm APDS has even lower slope modifiers and no problems with penetration because it does have extra penetration loss.
You have brought no actual proof to your claim, just “I have more experience”. I have the code of the game itself backing up what I’m saying and protection analysis as well. Until you actually have something that somewhat matches that, this is pointless.
Also, no sense in mentioning 90 mm APCR since APCR only started shattering in the 2nd APDS changes.
Edit: I should mention, 105 mm APDS did shatter, even on the Leo 1 turret, unlike what you claimed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/12ff7os/whats_up_with_the_leopard_1_gun_mantlet_and_apds/?rdt=36378
Not every. 15/20mm HE shells also share the same code, yet they don’t overpressure.
Ammo racks likely share the same damage model, yet 2 piece ammo, and ammo modelled in bulks have a chance to just black out, while individually modelled single piece ammo will explode (blowout panels excluded).
183mm HESH overpressure is also weird:
In both cases, it explodes the same distance away from the 40mm hull roof, yet in one case (while nothing obstructs the explosion path) it does not overpressure, yet in the worse case it does.
Month to month new armor hole bugs get discovered, yet it is not for every vehicle. Even so, when one tank is affected by the bug, but the exact copy of the tank in a different tree is not.
Vehicle mechanics are also bugged sometimes, that also affect only a few tanks.
A few months ago the Sarc Mk IV a had a bug where it could fire without crew being alive in the hull, yet no other Sarc, or any other tank was affected.
On the note of screenshots. “pen chance is low” can mean a whole different things for 2 different shells.
Not only the pen, but the damage after is also important.
And it was still penning after that. Only later was APCR unable to pen that turret.
Plus the link you provided shows an impact that is different from what i am talking about.
Shall i provide more examples of inconsistency?
Oh, @FlipAllTheTables, i’d like you to answer, which shell will perform better against angled armor at point blank range?
The 57mm BR-271 or the BR-271K?
Currently their statcards is bugged:
But in this video you can see their non bugged values:
Go to 5:30 if the timer in the link does not work.
EDIT: At this part, i am talking about the original, non-bugged value.
By their statcard, the K round should have more angle pen at point blank at 60 deg, but it is not true. The stock shell has better angle pen despite the statcards saying otherwise.
But this little bug highlights what i am talking about. It is bugged, and shows that the BR-271 has appearently 20mm pen at point blank at 60 deg. Is it true? No!
The Panzer IV F2 by it’s statcard has 38mm pen at point blank and at 60 deg, yet it will pen the T-34’s upper plate at that distance and angle, and the armor thickness is 45mm.
First, they do overpressure, but due to their very little explosive filler their overpressure radius is similarly small. Here’s a Reddit post from yesterday of an M36B2 dying from a Wirbelwind due to overpressure.
I’ve had individually modeled ammo black out and not explode, what you’ve said is untrue.
HESH and HEAT have overpressure that works differently from normal HE rounds.
Flat out not true since Gaijin hasn’t touched APCR/APDS shattering mechanics since the 2nd changes.
Except all those shots will actually work if you do them in an actual game. They are all at edges of plates of armor, which the game makes specifically weaker in an effort to decrease the amount of frustrating moments due to volumetric. Much like how this shot can happen, and I would know, because I’ve died to it. (Edit: for some reason this spoiler got deleted when I sent the reply).
I can’t tell if you’re looking for a serious answer or not.
I can tell you, however, that I know what is happening with this bug, and that in fact it is the case of one find affecting all rounds equaly.
It is an open top. I am talking about closed top vehicles.
Evidence maybe?
True, but it does not explain that what i was talking about.
When was that second change implemented?
I have tried out the T-54 one and it did not work.
Why not just answer it? Oh i know, it would show that you are wrong!
The new bug?
If you mean the new bug, then it is a nice lie. I am not a genious in mathematics, but to my calculations, the 271K’s 60deg pen value changed less than the normal 271, in terms or %.
M331A2 also was not changed, so nice double fail.
You also have not addressed a few points i have made. I wounder why…
If you know how projectiles work in game, you know that full bore AP rounds can undermatch and overmatch. The bug that is happening right now is that stat cards are taking the flat penetration value as using it as basis for the caliber to thickness ratio. As flat pen is generally higher than the projectile’s caliber, this means that the stat card ends up giving very poor slope modifiers. Keep in mind, this affects only the stat card, not the actual penetration of the rounds, which is unchanged.
On top of that, APDS and APFSDS rounds do not undermatch or overmatch. They are still “affected” by the bug, but it doesn’t matter for them because they always have the same slope modifiers no matter the thickness of the plate of armor they are facing. You can go ahead and remove that last statement now.
Let’s set some basic things straight. The maximum undermatching that can happen with a full bore AP round is when the armor is twice as thick as the projectile’s caliber, generally this is calculated with caliber to thickness ratio, so it would be 0.5.
Let’s look at BR-271K. Flat pen is 145 mm, divide 57 by 145 and that gives us 0.39 so we default that to the maximum undermatching which is 0.5. This makes it simple, the 60 degree slope modifier for an uncapped AP round with 0.5 caliber to thickness ratio is 2.96, dividing 145 by 2.96 gives us 48 mm of penetration. Taa-daaa, that’s why 48 mm is showing up in the stat card.
Now BR-271. Blunt AP rounds have specifically horrible slope effects when undermatching. Part of the math was already done with BR-271K, so now we just have to pick the slope effect for 60 degrees with 0.5 C/T for blunt AP which is… 7.36. Welp, that gives us 145 divided by 7.36 which rounds to 20 mm.
And there you have it. The exact same bug affecting things equally.
In short, no, I didn’t lie, it’s not my fault you like to pretend to know in-depth game mechanics.
Then you should note how I said “so long as enough of them”.
15 and 20 mm HE rounds have such weak TNT that you need a lot of those rounds for anything to work out. Those 30/40 mm cannons you mentioned work because not only are they much more powerful in sheer explosive mass, but they also fire at higher RPMs as they are generally more advanced.
What you were talking about is that the HESH was inconsisntent.
I pointed out that HESH and HEAT have different mechanics from HE. And both HESH and HEAT all have unreliable overpressure.
So, again, all rounds in the group share the unreliability of the mechanic that they share.
Okay, i misunderstood a bit what you meant by this:
Now, that you made clear in which way you meant that, you are correct.
I have the Drilling, we can try it out :)
Shooting the same spot will be consistent. What i pointed out there, that hitting the turret front will not OP the roof, but hitting the side while at the same distance from it does.
No matter how many times you do it, it will result the same.
It would be unreliable, if some turret front shots would OP it but some would not.
You are just trying to twist it around.
Regarding APCR, i have a secreenshot from 2023 october/november (way after the change you linked) where i test the M48 APCR vs Leo 1A1 turret with addon armor, and it pens (and now it does not).
Tomorrow i can search for it, it in on my laptop.
I hope that’s good enough.
YOU. COULD. NOT. POSSIBLY. HAVE. A. BIGGER. FAIL. AT. THIS.
Operation Barbarossa, Elisabeth Holmes, Elon Musk did not fail so damn hard.
I am just gonna leave this here:
Ah, my bad. The top most round in each corner is individually modeled though.
Still there’s this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/qv6j65/i_hit_his_ammunition_3_times_with_tow2b_and_he/
Because it is 2 years old. Ammo was not individually modelled on that tank.
Same goes for long barrel Panzer IIIs. before they had ready racks, it happened all the time. Not after they got the ready rack.
Which is irrelevant here.
Which is irrelevant here.
That one is certainly interesting. Thanks. Tho it is just a single exception. You have not demonstrated that it happens to every tank.
And you still haven’t addressed all of my points.
I absolutely do not, that’s not how arguments work.
You said individually modeled ammunition always explodes when it goes black, I said that wasn’t true, you asked for evidence, and as you admitted, I did just that, end of story.
If you want, you are the one can try to prove that this is an exception. The point of this was to show that your statement was simply wrong because I can find examples of the ammunition not exploding.
