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.
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.
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.
